Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 24	February 26 >

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. Daniel (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Jones (darts player)[edit]

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep been at two World Youth finals, and has had coverage in darting press - https://dev.dartsworld.com/tag/jake-jones/. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youth competitions do not add towards passing notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:SIGCOV and no significant achievements to suggest any exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akaya[edit]

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

This article was recently moved from draft space to main space, however, none of the sources listed seem to be credible and they are probably not independent either. His songs have also not charted on any national music charts. The article easily fails our notability criteria for musicians. Keivan.f^Talk 21:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are at least 3, maybe 4 reliable, secondary sources by way of interview given. Article passes WP:NMUSIC --Whiteguru (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the reference list I only see sources of regional papers and some other small publishers. Some of which aren't seen as reliable even on the Turkish Wikipedia. I will do a separate search to see if I can find something. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 08:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing other than what is already in the article. The Ordu and Manisa sources are nowhere near reliable as they are the exact same article published by the exact same author, just in a different regional news website. This and this is a blatant CTRL+C/CTRL+V from the Ordu/Manisa source. [1], [2], [3] and [4] are non-reliable sources no one has ever heard of, and on top of that, all of them only have simple background information of him, no signs of WP:SIGCOV. That leaves us with these English sources: [5], [6] and [7], 2 of which are interviews and the reliability of them is doubtful. Granted, this might seem like a lot of sources for someone outside of Turkey, but the sites are just crap and likely to be promo. Having some minor sites publish who you are doesn't make you pass WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 08:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the sources listed in the article are reliable as Styyx mentioned above. One or two of them are regional papers that could easily be paid to publish a few words on a subject and the rest are simply websites with zero credibility. None of them cover the subject in detail either. Aside from that, as a singer he is required to have songs charted in national music charts. Not to mention that he has a very low number of listeners on digital platforms. Keivan.f^Talk 04:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Styyx.-KH-1 (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, current sources fails in WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 13:40, 26 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. A large percentage of the keep comments here have no grounding in policy; what matters is whether there are reliable sources providing significant coverage of the programming language, not how many pageviews the article receives, whether you like it, or whether it is merely related to notable things. Even with these arguments discounted, there is consensus that sufficient sourcing exists to establish the notability of the subject. Many sources are recent, challenging the nominator's claim that the language has faded into obscurity, and making the previous discussions in 2015 and earlier less applicable. Of course, there is also consensus that the article needs substantial trimming and improved sourcing, and that it should not be linked inappropriately from other articles, but neither of these are reasons for deletion. — The Earwig (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nim (programming language)[edit]

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

Yet another open source computer language that never quite achieved notability despite the developer's attempts to promote it.

Most of the citations are to nim-lang.org or the Nim github page.

15 page views in the last 30 days (including mine).

A few sources that pretty much cover everything new covered this when it was new. The developers also managed to get invited to make presentations at some conferences.

And now some of the fans are spamming it into the "see also" of all the other computer languages. See [8]. Example: Rust (programming language)#See also -- it is the only language listed even though Rust has nothing to do with Nim and everything to do with C++

Last AfD was in 2015 when it was new: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language) (The 2019 AfD was just an attempt at disruption and never had a real discussion)
Deletion review in 2015: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 26
Many opinions about deletion attempts on Talk:Nim (programming language), mostly from 2015.

Bottom line: it looked promising when it was shiny and new but never quite took off and became notable. Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well I didn't expect to see this here when I went looking at AfD for the first time in a few weeks... I've heard quite a bit about this language through word-of-mouth, so I'm inclined to say weak keep, but I think a lot of those arguments have a good amount of merit. I will say that at first glance it looks like the article could be trimmed considerably, as several sections seem irrelevant for a programming language this "small". It makes sense to me that that could be an attempt by fans to improve its appearance by giving it a visually (as in length and syntax highlighting) developed article on Wikipedia. I'll have to do some reading and research, but I'm fairly confident discussion is warranted—I wouldn't be surprised if I end up going towards delete, here. Perryprog (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep: So people are trying to censor me from learning about nim from Wikipedia! Wikipedia will be the poorer without the article, even if it is a false trail as it has a significant presence around the Web.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After searching a bit I found 1 2 3 sources discussing Nim in some depth. ZDNet is listed at WP:RSP as reliable, and the others have Wikipedia articles - so not just niche sources (i.e. probably reliable). While the amount of coverage isn't great, this is a relatively new programming language that has gotten some usage, so I support keeping the article. However, it could certainly be trimmed a bit. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep This page has a discrete traffic, not only 15 views/day: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=this-month&pages=Nim_(programming_language), however I've seen that there is age-old lack of reliable sources, but I think that it is possible to help this piece of C.S. to make it take flight. ZandDev (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Searching around for "nim programming language" I have found at least the following sources which I believe meet WP:GNG, [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. The article is definitely far too long though and I would support trimming it. This AfD seems to imply that "And now some of the fans are spamming it into the "see also" of all the other computer languages." is a reason to vote for deletion, surely that should be moderated separately and have no bearing on the decision here. Also, the page views metric quoted in this AfD is plain wrong, this article in fact gets significant traffic (over 200 views per day [14]) dom96 (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep FWIW, comparing Nim and D-lang (https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=all-agents&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2021-01-31&pages=Nim_(programming_language)%7CD_(programming_language) ), D-lang is steadily falling while Nim keeps growing. Right now they are both around 300-400 visits. ADA-lang is also below 1000 visits. HyperTalk is less than 50 visits. Regarding relevance: currently https://github.com/brentp/mosdepth (written in Nim) is the fastest tool to calculate NGS coverages, quickly becoming the standard (cited in more than 100 papers in the last 2 years). 92.191.80.196 (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having ZDNet and The Register cover its 1.0 launch is sufficient coverage. It's clearly not just someone's Sourceforge project. Promotionalism issues can be dealt with separately. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kerr[edit]

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

He just about meets WP:NFOOTBALL because of 16 mins of professional football over two matches about 14 years ago. He then played 5 games in the fourth tier of Scotland then seemingly disappeared. I can find nothing to suggest a passing of WP:GNG. Growing consensus now that players that barely pass NFOOTBALL need to meet GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG was failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails in passing WP:BASIC. Hulatam (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with arguments above. Clearly does not have the level of notability that would merit an article. Dunarc (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failing wp:before search. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 13:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG here despite only scrapping past WP:NFOOTY. HawkAussie (talk) 23:24, 27 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) 20:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ana E. Lita[edit]

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

This is more of a resume than anything else. I see nothing that would substantiate a claim of notability under WP:BASIC, WP:PROF or any other relevant policies. The subject has had a career, but does not appear to have achieved any benchmarks for inclusion in an encyclopedia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per nom. Reads like a resume and check for sources or coverage finds little to nothing except this article and derivatives. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Hedik[edit]

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

The subject does not meet GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO, or NSOLDIER. Sources in the article are not SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth. The The Scramble in the Horn of Africa simply states, "Rumours of the desertions of Nur Hedik (leader of the Dervish horse) and his following are still current." (no other mentions in book). The Times source only states they were shot (6 words total). The final source is quoted in the article, so it is obvious this is a mention, not SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing. This is related to the previous AfD here [15]. // Timothy :: talk 22:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy GNG and BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's very sketchy. It's not clear when he was commander of the Dervish cavalry, or if he was commander of whole or some part; the article itself seems to turn into coverage of Dervish cavalry part way through. It's also an orphan. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment, Hedik was commander overall of cavalry, since commanders of subsections had other names such as Casardega, Isumara, Xamarka, Baroorka, Dooxato or Lufato. One such commander of a subsection of cavalry was a guy named Mursal Saacid. As you can see, I haven't created a page on Mursal because Mursal isn't as notable as the overall commander of Dervish cavalry whom happened to be Hedik. As for the time period, he was commander from Dervish begginnings to his death. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately there are not sources that support this. Please read WP:OR WP:SYNTH. // Timothy :: talk 11:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nowhere is Nur Hedik referred to as commander of Casardega, Isumara, Xamarka, Baroorka, Dooxato or Lufato. Rther each sources discussing him directly links him to the entire Dervish organization. Furthermore, in the multiple chapters of intelligence reports, no other person has the term leader of cavalry, or horse etc. attached to them, only Nur Hedik. As such, its safe to say that the lede is accurate. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe a lot of OR/SYNTH is being added to the article to try and puff this person up into something they are not; the source and new info added to the article doesn't mention this person [16]. Two pages related to this person, Shire Umbaal and Adam Maleh, have already been deleted. // Timothy :: talk 10:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The way the development of the article has taken since AfD started is towards a treatment of the Dervish cavalry and not the person of who we have learned nothing more. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this was about Dervish cavalry, then the composition such as Casardega, Isumara, Xamarka, Baroorka, Dooxato or Lufato would have been included. Also, other cavalry raids which are known for Hedik not being involved such as Bebera raid in 1914 and Burao raid in the same year would have been included. However I have opted not to include these raids as it had nothing to do with Hedik. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's all seems like a lot of stitching together of whatever snippets are available rather than a treatment of the man and his use of the resources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm quite knowledgeable on the subject and you are free to leave in-line tags on the page wherein I will hopefully corroborate on whichever matter you believe is unsubstantiated. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you something to do then.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contrary to Timothy's assertions of no other mentions, other mentions do exist, albeit with different spellings. Furthermore, it was a common policy to avoid directly naming leaders of Dervish adversaries, see for instnce "six leaders of the enemy's force were killed" albeit nameless (source), as such, when Nur Hedik gets named despite this British censorship, it is indicative of significance. Furthermore, its clear that Hedik was overall commander of Dervish horse, since he wasn't named by any of the sub battalions named above, and the sources are from independent mutually exclusive dates and authors. When you couple this with the fact that no other sources describes an overall cavalry commander, then its safe to say that Nur Hedik was overall commander of the Dervish cavalry. Instances when sub-battalions of Dervish cavalry were in action I have explicitly excluded from this page. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can handle alternate spellings in sources but WP:Verifiability means if he's not mentioned by name then it's OR or synth to interpret mentions of the Dervish horsemen as being mentions of him. We need named mentions. And we need content because WP:MERGEREASON applies "Short text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic" - and then this article will just be a redirect to Dervish or Somaliland campaign where it could just say "The commander of the Dervish cavalray was killed in 19xx" GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet SIGCOV or GNG. Topic is not notable enough and is not significantly covered. Dabaqabad (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. - wolf 02:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UWIRE[edit]

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

This does not appear to be an article about a notable entity. One of the article's sources is a self-published link listing the "affiliates" of the company, while the other is a deadlink that apparently references the indefinite suspension of the service. Due to the lack of independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage to the article's topic, the article does not appear to meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's four sources: MediaShift, Chronicle of Higher Education, Arizona Daily Star, and Meridan-Journal. I suspect there'd be more if I searched longer. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 02:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are four more sources: 1, 2, 3, 4. Likewise, newspapers.com lists 1,369 hits for "uwire" from 1994 to present. The nominator claims to have looked at the sources currently in the article, but makes no claim to have looked elsewhere—despite the requirement to "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" before nominating an article for deletion. As Sdkb points out, and as reinforced by the four sources I just mentioned, even a short search clearly supports notability. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several references can be found in this search of Editor & Publisher, which provides good coverage of the newspaper industry. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several sources can be found, quick search on Newspapers.com broad sufficient coverage. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:45, 25 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. No further rationales for deletion have been advanced since the article was improved during the discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Journey Through Europe[edit]

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

This article was subject to a PROD. It comes from the days when Wikipedia was substantially less rigorous than today. I tend to the view that articles of this vintage deserve AfD rather than a PROD. The PROD rationale by Piotrus was:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.

I agree with their rationale, have discussed PROD removal with them, and am requesting a full discussion. Fiddle Faddle 09:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my cited rationale. Few other observations: 1) the game is also known as "Explore Europe". GBooks/GScholar searches under both name did not reveal anything. 2) There is likely an article to be written on a related topic ("The first marketed English geographical board game, A Journey through Europe, or the Play of Geography." (see also John Jefferys). So for anyone searching for sources, please don't confuse the possibly notable 1759 game by Jefferys with the discussed here non-notable 1954 game; I don't think there is any connection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are pretty much no sources for either of the English titles, outside of the usual game database sites and sales pages. Searching for its original, German name "Europareise" does produce a few results, but even those are nothing but passing mentions. It also appears that the German Wikipedia does not have an article on the game, so I was unable to use that to see if they had included any non-English sources. It could probably also be Redirect to Ravensburger, the publisher of the game, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a rather well-known children's game in Europe, and has been reviewed on a number of European game review sites. I have added those to the article, as well as re-organizing it.Guinness323 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Guinness323, Thank you for your finds. My concerns are: 1) what makes reich-der-spiele reliable? The site does call itself an 'online magazine', but it is at the very least niche (it does not have an entry on de wiki). I'd say they are reliable for facts, but does being reviewed in such a niche website help establish notability? I'd actually lean to say yes (treating at as a type of online trade journal with non-anonymous authors and AGFing they have some form of internal reviews - but frankly, they don't say they have them, and maybe they just publish anything their team plays without any internal control, who's to know? I do wonder what WP:RSN would say...) but 2) [17] doesn't even have 'about us' section I can see. It also calls itself online magazine, but here, we don't know who writes it. I'd say this source should not be considered for reliability. 3) [18] this looks very bad. The site used to have a domain at www.spielphase.de but it just redirects to http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/keirat/ now and it looks like someone's personal homepage/blog (authors are Claudia Schlee & Andreas Keirat, and note /keirat'). There is no about. So again, thanks for finding, but while I may be convinced we found one plausibly (but not clearly) reliable review, the other twos are IMHO not reliable (self-published), and GNG does require 2+ good sources... Ps. I don't think there is such an entity as 'virtual game museum Ludomu', it seems like a list on a subpage of the reich-der-spiele magazine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep sources in the article are certainly independent. If the publishers have editorial control is a lot less clear. But I don't see any reason to think the reviews are wrong or the things published have any issues with reliability. Add in the long publication history (not an inclusion guideline but a sign that the game has had an impact) and I think we are over the bar. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guinness323 and Hobit, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being prodded by Piotrus is not a reason to delete; quite the contrary. Note that Piotrus is topic banned "from discussing or editing anything having to do with WWII (including pre- and post-war) or anything having to do with Polish political history, as broadly construed as you can imagine...". The game in question has evolved in line with European history and WWII has naturally had a significant effect on this. The various editions involve the political frontiers between German and Poland, including the controversial city of Danzig/Gdansk – the flashpoint which actually started WWII – and which appears in at least one edition. @El C: should please consider whether this is a breach of the topic ban.

As for the topic, it is a boardgame from a major German manufacturer of same. Board games are especially popular and respected as family entertainment in Germany and so one would naturally expect coverage in that language. Guinness323 has ably demonstrated what can be done when the topic is approached with a constructive attitude. WP:ATD therefore applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, Piotrus' topic ban ~~has expired a few weeks ago (around the 1st of the month).~~ El_C 14:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, my impression is that the ban was placed on 1 Feb and so would last until 1 March. The PROD was placed on 7 Feb and discussion continues here. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, gah, you're right. Apparently, I'm unable to count the passage of time for some reason! //Investigating. El_C 15:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

During the lockdown, such as we have here in London, I find that one day seems much like another and so the days blur. Or it could be the old saw that "time flies when you're having fun!" :) Andrew🐉(talk) 15:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, yeah, exactly! What month is this again? Anyway, the investigation: the board game may indeed have been impacted by WWII, and it may also touch on a Polish-German connection in some way, but I do not see Piotrus (or anyone else here, for that matter) make mention of that in this deletion discussion (besides you), as being noteworthy (or per se.). The article, as well, makes no mention of this time period (whatsoever). So, I would be wary to deem this a violation of the topic ban. El_C 15:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, I was unaware of the topic ban. I took the PROD at face value, found I agreed with the rationale, but felt that the case deserved an airing rather than the summary deletion at the end of an expired PROD.
That airing seems likely to keep the article. I'm happy with any consensus based outcome. Fiddle Faddle 15:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Affirming that, at a glance, this isn't an article which seems suitable to PROD. El_C 17:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:24, 25 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 20:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José Francisco Gomes Monteiro[edit]

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

Mayor of a town of 7,500 people, putting it in the final third of Portugal's municipalities by population (see List of municipalities of Portugal). Available resources for the biography are mainly from local news and even then are mostly announcements of candidacy and election results. There's an article from national radio about him opening the town hall to the public in their lunch hour which is kind of cute [19], a regional news story about him speaking about the cheese festival [20], and astonishingly an in-depth national news website made an article about his broken promise to open the swimming pool again [21] but does this really justify an article for a politician of this level? Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above fails WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL and no reason they pass WP:GNG. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because they exist — the notability test for a mayor requires some actual substance supported by a significant volume of reliable source coverage to demonstrate his political importance, and is not automatically passed by every mayor just because you single-source his existence to a directory entry in a primary source. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not all mayors are notable, that is the level of inclusion we would need to have to justify having an article on this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 18:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José Santos Marques[edit]

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

Mayor of a town of 5,000 people, sourced only to a full reference work of Portuguese mayors. Fails WP:POLITICIAN requirements for local politicians. I have searched the name and found a fair few local reports from 2014 about an event in his honour, a summary news wire from Portugal's state radio about his re-election in 2005 but nothing that shows that his mandate over 5,000 people was extraordinary Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all above fails WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because they exist — the notability test for a mayor requires some actual substance supported by a significant volume of reliable source coverage to demonstrate his political importance, and is not automatically passed by every mayor just because you single-source his existence to a directory entry in a primary source. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable mayor of a fairly small place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 18:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lahore Whites. While there are a couple of keep arguments, they did not refute the assertion that the article fails the GNG. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naved Ahmed (Lahore cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article clearly needs improvement, and to take out all of the Cricket Archive links. However, the article also clearly passes WP:CRIN by virtue of Naved having played in three List A matches. As usual for cricketers, WP:GNG is not the relevant standard. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lahore List-A cricketers or similar Has played 3 List-A matches, but probably meets the threshold to be deleted using similar precedent to WP:FOOTY use for footballers with just a couple of games. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in three LA matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 4 March 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 keep. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Ismail (cricketer, born 1992)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has played 1 FC, 5 List-A and 2 Twenty20 matches, passing him for WP:CRIN. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing first class and List A cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in multiple matches across all three formats, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG means general, all articles need to meet it and this one clearly does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Ismail (Quetta cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has played 2 FC and 4 List-A matches, passing him for WP:CRIN. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing both first class and List A cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in FC and LA matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no adequate sourcing to pass GNG. It is time we remove rubbish articles like this from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments provided do not refute the claim that the article fails GNG. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan (cricketer, born 1991)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - I strongly believe it should be deleted because reliable sources are week and this article written just for advertisement purpose. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Player has played 1 FC and 8 T20 matches passing him for WP:CRIC. Article needs improving and not deleting. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing List A cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in LA and T20 matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scorecards (the entire scope of referencing in the article) do not WP:GNG pass. SportingFlyer T·C 19:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well reasoned arguments of Sportingflyer. I hope the closer recognizes that this is not cricketpedia, and the point of Wikipedia articles is not to gather the information from score cards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV, only wide-ranging databases consisting mostly of scorecards, so also fails WP:SPORTCRIT. The lack of sources, means we have prose synthesised from scorecards and mostly merely listing statistical detail. NCRIC is notoriously bad as presuming notability for cricketers such as these, with very few domestic T20 appearances and a solitary LA appearance (incidentally this one was in division 2 – and as such, not the "highest level"), and community consensus has shown that more is required than a trivial pass of SNG such as this. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Provided arguments do not refute the assertion that the article fails GNG. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan (cricketer, born 1990)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I strongly believe it should be deleted because reliable sources are week and this article written just for advertisement purpose.TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Player has played 5 FC, 5 List-A and 1 T20 match, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Article needs improving not deleting. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing first-class and List A cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in multiple FC, LA and T20 matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG since it's sourced only to scorecards, which trumps any sports related SNGs. Nearly impossible to search for sources due to name (I did try). SportingFlyer T·C 23:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally fails GNG as is well explained the SportingFlyer. I hope the closer evaluates the merits of the arguments and discounts those that are built on the false premise that this is Cricketpedia and not Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Arguably also fails NCRIC due to most of the the matches he played (second-tier or qualifying rounds), and all of the teams he played for (Quetta & DM Jamali), being nowhere close to the "highest domestic level", e.g. "PCB... pit minnows against the big boys". Incidentally, he seems to be generally referred to as "Imran Rind". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan (cricketer, born 1963)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While searching for this cricketer on google, I found Pakistan current president Imran khan who also played domestic as well as international cricket for his country. This article is not for Pakistan current president. I checked the references as well but found one of them asking for login and for that you need to pay them. Second reference I have checked and found this player did not played international cricket for Pakistan. He played few match innings for domestic cricket so I strongly believe it should be deleted because reliable sources are week and this article trying to advertise them.TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has played 5 FC and 1 List-A matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Article needs improving not deleting. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing both first class and List A cricket. Agree with Rugbyfan that the article needs to be improved, though. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in FC and LA matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the correct standard for all articles is GNG which is totally failed here. We must delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imraan Khan (cricketer, born January 1984)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I strongly believe it should be deleted because reliable sources are week and this article written just for advertisement purpose.TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC) [There are reliable sources available via ESPN CricInfo; it's just they haven't been cited. It would be relatively straightforward to simply delete all the Cricket Archive references and replace them with CricInfo. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)][reply]
Strong keep: he has played 4 first class matches and 3 list A matches, in games where scorecards are definitely available and match reports are likely to be available with sufficient perusal of the South African press. I don't understand how there can be nothing in searches when there are multiple pages on a major website (CricInfo) referring to him. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has played 4 FC and 3 List-A matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rugbyfan. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan (cricketer, born September 1973)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has played 5 FC and 13 List-A matches, clearly passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing many first class and List A cricket matches. This shouldn't even be a discussion. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played multiple LA and FC matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources are close to meeting GNG. The cricket guidelines have been shown to be junk that in no way predict meeting GNG. These are the only debates I have seen where editors think that such sub-standard sourcing is a good way to keep articles. It is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imtiaz Ahmed (1990s Jammu and Kashmir cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Per Nom. No RS.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has played 4 FC and 4 List-A matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is easily passed by virtue of playing both first class and List A cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in LA and FC matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no reliable sources, which is what all articles need. No complaining about some failed useless standard changes that fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Naeem (cricketer, born 1959)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has played 8 FC and 2 List-A matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing both first class and List A cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in FC and LA matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is absolutely needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Naeem (Lahore cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has played 7 FC matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing multiple first class cricket matches. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in seven FC matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lahore Eagles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Naeem (Lahore Eagles cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Lahore Eagles cricketers or similar Has played 1 List A game, but no coverage other than that. Using similar precedent to WP:FOOTY when footballers have only played one or a few matches they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Jammu and Kashmir cricketers. Daniel (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Ahmed (1970s Jammu and Kashmir cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Per Nom. No RS.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Jammu and Kashmir cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC game, but no coverage. Using similar precedent as used in WP:FOOTY when a player has one or a few matches and no coverage, they should be deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Jammu and Kashmir cricketers. per WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Ahmed (1980s Jammu and Kashmir cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Per Nom. No RS.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Jammu and Kashmir cricketers or similar Player has played 1 FC game, but no coverage. Using similar precedent as used in WP:FOOTY when a player has played 1 or a few matches and no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:00, 26 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 Sheikhupura. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Naeem (Sheikhupura cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Sheikhupara cricketers or similar has played 1 List-A match, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that as used in WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches and no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Big Hit Entertainment. — The Earwig (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KOZ Entertainment[edit]

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

Non-notable entertainment company. If this draft were being reviewed at AFC, it would be declined as saying what the company says about itself. The draft says nothing about what third parties say about the company. Google search finds corporate pages and pages in social media, which means that the company exists and uses social media. We knew that. That is all that we knew, and is still all that we know. That isn't enough for an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Hit I think we should restore the original redirect to big hit entertainment. I do not support a full article of this. Rushtheeditor (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2021
Support deletion per reasons outlined by nominator. No two ways about it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Hit Entertainment. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Hit Entertainment as per all above. Hulatam (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering closing this now myself via WP:BOLD, but since it is not unanimous, I’ll wait. Redirect to Big Hit Entertainment. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Hit Entertainment - fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. --Ashley yoursmile! 19:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Karachi Education Board cricket team. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Ahmed (Karachi cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Karachi Education Board cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC game, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used in WP:FOOTY when a player has played 1 or a few matches and no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karachi Education Board cricketers or similar The reasons cited above by Rugbyfan are reasonable, i concurr Totalstgamer (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Ahmed (1950s Peshawar cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has played 5 FC matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing first class cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in five FC matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the minimum standard for everything in Wikipedia is GNG, which is not met here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Ahmed (cricketer, born 1983)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played 2 first class matches and 4 List A games, therefore passing WP:CRIN. WP:GNG is not the relevant notability guideline. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has played 2 FC and 4 List-A matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in FC and LA matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is the relevant guideline for all of Wikipedia and is failed in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shujauddin (cricketer, born 1970)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing List A cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has played 4 List-A matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in four LA matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be enough of a significant personality and has coverage as well - Wakemeup38 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Islamabad cricket team. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib Akhtar (cricketer, born 1982)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing List A cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Islamabad cricketers or similar Has played 2 List-A matches, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used in WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few appearances but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in LA matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage, only wide-ranging databases consisting mostly of scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. In addition, his trivial pass of NCRIC is negated by a strict interpretation, since qualifying/preliminary round matches are plainly not the "highest domestic level" and he was not playing for a department. Clearly verifiable, so inclusion in a list would be a valid WP:ATD, but no suitable list exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Punjab cricket team (Pakistan). No given arguments refute the assertion that the article fails GNG. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shujauddin (cricketer, born 1936)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has played 6 FC matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing multiple first class matches. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in six FC matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG (which supersedes any specific sports notability SNGs), the only coverage is cricket scorecards, we aren't even sure there's not a database error since there's a claim he appeared 20 years apart. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rawalpindi cricket team. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Akram (Rawalpindi cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing both first class and List A cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Rawalpindi cricketers or similar Has played both FC and List-A cricket, but only 3 total matches and no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:NFOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches and no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in FC and LA matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. A very trivial pass of an extremely permissive SNG is not enough to outweigh the lack of significant coverage. Verifiable, so a merge/redirect to a suitable list would be the usual WP:ATD, but non exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Akram (Lahore Division cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has played 4 FC matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in four FC matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the singificant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Ali (cricketer, born 1985)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Multan Tigers cricketers or similar Has played 1 List A match, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this cricketer with one appearance passes our standards for biographical notability, no redirect target exists Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will Major[edit]

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

Autobiography that fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. SK2242 (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could not find one iota of independent coverage. Keep, move, and clean up based on the addition of new sources by Eagles247. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 05:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of the sources is a WP:CIRCULAR, the others are just Apple Music links. No independent articles cited. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Additionally, a wp:before search using "Willie Foster" return a few unrelated result. Using "Will Major" returns a lot of results unrelated to this person. Checking the history of the page, the page is created by Willmajor1 (talk · contribs), which is a clear wp:COI editing. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 06:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aseleste. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move article to Willie Foster (American football). Subject passes WP:NGRIDIRON, as he played in the CFL in 2007 per [22]. Also appears to pass WP:GNG from his college football career: "Longtime friends and teammates" from The Record, "Speedy Foster catching on with Scarlet Knights" and "Special-teams success isn't enough for Foster" from The Courier-News. He may not be notable for his music career, but, if the article is kept, his WP:COMMONNAME should be used as the new article title. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NGRIDIRON and I see no reason to make an exception. Moving to another article name may be the right choice but I have no opinion on that at this time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move, per Eagles247. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON #1. Self-promotional material within the article can be removed at editorial discretion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Willie Foster (Canadian football) or Willie Foster (American football). He passes NGRIDIRON since he played in the Canadian Football League. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or recreate as Willie Foster (American football) If it meets WP:NGRIDIRON criteria, well enough. I won't comment on that as I have no insight. However, the lede identifying his accomplishment in the field of music needs deleted entirely. Fails completely under music notability. This is a vanity page by the subject to promote his aspiring music career. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be easier to just move it and clean it up. He undoubtedly meets the football criteria. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @ShelbyMarion: I've rewrote the lead to reflect what he's most notable for. Do you still think the article needs to be deleted only to be recreated under the more appropriate title? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say whatever it takes to fix it to keep this subject on wikipedia as a football player. If merely rewriting, or moving, or recreate, or whatever the proper terminology is, that's fine. He is not a notable person in music and given the fact there is zero RS references I don't see the need for any acknowledgment of it at all, any more than an article on Tom Brady needs to reference that he likes to play golf in his spare time. The edit history log suggests he created his own page to promote his music. So, yeah, the title needs to change from his rapper name to his football name. And if acknowledgment of his music is necessary at all it is not important enough to be in the lede. In fact, I suppose simply deleting the "discography" section and replacing it with a "personal life", using the exact wording you put in the lede, would fix everything. JMO. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Uttar Pradesh cricketers. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Ahmed (Uttar Pradesh cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Uttar Pradesh cricketers or similar Has played 3 FC matches, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few appearances but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable cricket player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is a case of WP:SYNTH. Sandstein 10:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual child abuse[edit]

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

A WP:POVFORK of Satanic ritual abuse lately worked on by WP:ADVOCATEs and WP:ACTIVISTs newly emboldened by the QAnon culture, this particular article relies on extremely poor sources (including not a few by predatory journals and WP:SELFPUB) to make a claim that there is a classification of "ritual abuse" which goes beyond the one that is generally used in the context of the moral panic around SRA that held sway in the 1980s and 1990s. The people writing this article seem to be trying to use Wikipedia to push the POV that there is a concerted phenomenon of ritualized child abuse going on in the world. This strikes me as conspiratorial thinking, especially in the context of today's political climate, and is, frankly, a distraction from actual issues related to child trafficking and child abuse. jps (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The layout is odd and it might be a redundant fork of something - though I haven't investigated and satanic ritual abuse seems to fit in name only - but the nom's description doesn't match the article. It's been around for years and has hardly changed post-QAnon; it seems to mainly be about superstitious rituals in the developing world like FGM, etc. that are abusive to children. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It was started and maintained by students in a WikiEd project... many of whom it looks like were not really being carefully checked in terms of their sourcing and article writing standards. Since then it has been used by certain questionable accounts in, for example, the way it is now featured as a possible disambig at Ritual Abuse. I am still trying to decide what to do about the account in question who seems to be taken in by some of the conspiracy theories lately swirling around this subject, but a POVFORK can happen whether the authors intended that when they authored the article or not. jps (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this article has anything to do with QAnon, at least as currently written. The article at the very least appears to be an improper synthesis of numerous unrelated practices that have not been analysed collectively as "ritual child abuse" in the scholarly literature. The article is also poorly written in a way which I don't think is recoverable, so I think WP:TNT also applies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination misrepresents the topic, which is a broad survey of the various types of child abuse with a customary or traditional nature, such as Female genital mutilation. The page quotes the UN Secretary-General’s study on violence against children, "In every region, in contradiction to human rights obligations and children’s developmental needs, violence against children is socially approved and is frequently legal and state authorized." That report was written by Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro who seems to be a respectable expert. If the UN and its experts think that there's a problem which needs reporting on then the matter seems to be quite notable and significant. Wild-eyed theories about satanism and QAnon are something else and best kept separate.

What's probably causing confusion is the word "ritual" in the page's title. Perhaps a title change might make the scope of the topic clearer. For example, here's a book on the topic. Its title suggests an alternative: Harmful Traditional Practices. Note that title changes are performed by a move, not by deletion.

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- (Not !voting yet): My first impression is also that the article's name is not ideal. Here's the initial revision of the WikiEd page. I also see synthesis (acceptable if it was a list-style article with a well defined inclusion criteria) and we obviously have articles about most topics already, explaining how easy it can be considered a POV fork. Apparently the few sources that are not synthesis and directly related to child abuse in the context of institutions or ritual would be old or from non-notable advocacy org(s). As for the Satanic ritual abuse moral panic, while reading a whole page linking practices together reminds of it, I don't see the obvious relation. I also see no outlandish claims of democratic organized Satanic pedophilia associated with conspiracy theorists like QAnon, at least in the current article. —PaleoNeonate – 01:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - user:Andrew Davidson, at some point someone is going to propose a topic ban for AfD for you, arguing that someone who can't even be bothered to cite an acceptable secondary source should not be participating in these discussions. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Drmies seems mistaken or confused. The book I suggested – Harmful Traditional Practices – seems to be both a good fit for the topic and a respectable secondary source. You can read more about it here. It's from the Palgrave Macmillan imprint of Springer Nature and its authors include "Karl A. Roberts – a consultant for the World Health Organisation, and Professor and Chair of Policing and Criminal Justice at The University of Western Sydney". The work is about "harmful traditional practices: damaging and often violent acts which include female genital mutilation, forced marriage, honour killings and abuse, breast ironing, witchcraft and faith-based abuse." What's wrong with that book? Andrew🐉(talk) 02:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not to jump in on this discussion or whatever, but it seems rather torturous to claim that an article about "ritual child abuse" is actually about "harmful traditional practices". I understand that you see a similarity in the content of this page and the chapters of that book and are, I assume, in good faith arguing for a rename to preserve... something?... you think is worthwhile in the current treatment. But this does feel a little bit to me like bending over backwards to come to the conclusion you always seem to want to come to. Just a little observation from the other side, if you will. jps (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The topic was selected for this work by a respectable professor at the University of Chicago, as noted below. The content aligns well with the book Harmful Traditional Practices and other similar works such as Interrogating Harmful Cultural Practices. Our much misunderstood policy WP:DICDEF explains that "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by." and so we should expect a variety of names and titles for a broad topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        There is absolutely no indication that the title or topic of this article was chosen by the instructor. jps (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Hemiauchenia. It's pretty much of a summary (rewrite?) of this report by a now-defunct NGO. Almost none of the other sources cited speak about the practice in question in the context of ritual abuse. So it's pretty much a big glob of WP:SYNTH material, ripe for deletion.--JBchrch (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but retitle This article did not begin as anything to do with QAnon but as a class assignment for a University of Chicago course on children's exposure to violence. This Winter 2018 class predates the rise of QAnon. I don't think it needs to be deleted because of how it might be misused. That development just means it probably should be on more editors' Watchlists and needs some serious review. Alternatively, parts of the article could be merged into Child abuse or just drop the "Ritual" part which has unfortunate associations with Satanism or less developed cultures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A merge in the child abuse article is also a possibility I am thinking of, in the event AfD passes. —Paleo Neonate – 02:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some other related articles: Epidemiology of domestic violence, Religious abuse —Paleo Neonate – 02:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like someone wanted to force some subjects with very marginal similarity into a patterned category of their own making, neatly structured into subparagraphs with identical headers ("Historical Origins", "Regional Statistics", "Health Consequences", "Policy Initiatives"). Very obviously WP:OR and not helpful at all. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full of WP:SYNTH, no reason that a dowry should be tied FGM under this name. These "types" all have their own articles and it doesn't make sense to put them into one page just to be independently discussed. Thanks to JBchrch's find, this is just paraphrasing an NGO's report, raising copyright violation concerns, not an encyclopedic article. Reywas92^Talk 19:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. There are a number of topics that don't really belong in this article, such as Circumcision, FGM, Swaddling, Dowry and Bride price and Food taboos. These topics really have nothing to do with ritual child abuse and in fact, have their own articles. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. The article is rambling and as clear as mud.TH1980 (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a potentially legitimate sub-subject/sub-page of ~~Satanic ritual abuse~~ and Child abuse. Of course one could say this whole page is one big synthesis, and it would be easier just to WP:TNT, but I do not think that's the optimal solution given that the content is very large and referenced. My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is emphatically not a sub-page of SRA, despite many attempts over the years to associate the two topics. SRA was a moral panic and the events claimed never happened. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my mistake. My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. A list of POVForks that already have articles. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Synthesis based on sources of varying reliability — some of the journals and news reports look fine in principle, but there's also random websites and post-2013 Newsweek, not to mention reference #19, which is cited twice and is just a path to a local file on the original editor's computer. Earwig finds enough direct copying that I doubt actual care or effort went into the prose. XOR'easter (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is an assorted of non-linked cultural practices of child-rearing, many of which are non-Western cultural practices, whose only connecting tie appears to be the author of the article sees them as problematic and tantamount to overt child abuse. Which could be the case in some matters, but very well may not be in others. And worse labeling them as "ritual child abuse" is highly misleading mislabeling. Swaddling children, for example, has no necessary connection with dowries, which in turn has no necessary connection with FGM: and all three practices are not intrinsically ritualistic. The very phrase Ritual Child Abuse conjures up specific connotations for modern readers, particularly in our present era post-Satanic ritual abuse panics and post-QAnon panics or fears over ritual child abuse (which in fairness the article makes no mention of, and to which I am not connecting it). Lastly the disparate non-connected topics listed here appear to simply have been randomly sourced and largely almost copy-pasted and lightly edited. Some of the sources are good, others problematic, but in all case the article basically looks at a number of cultural practices concerning child raising and simply labels them abusive without any apparnet consistent criteria and then, worse, labels them ritualistic - without any convincing anthropological or sociological context for doing so. KJS ml343x (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Water and Power Development Authority cricketers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Ali (WAPDA cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Water and Power Development Authority cricketers, per consensus from countless earlier AFDs and other discussions. Trivially passes NCRIC but there is no WP:SIGCOV available, and highly unlikely any exists, given this is a player who only appeared in a couple of recorded matches. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with so many other AfDs, this request has been made on the basis of WP:GNG when the relevant standard is WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of having played first class cricket (as indeed is noted by Wjemather above. WP:SIGCOV is unimportant when WP:CRIN is passed. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you have it backwards. There is clear consensus from endless discussions, AFDs and RFCs that NSPORT guidelines do not override GNG. And in the case of NCRIC, SIGCOV is a requirement. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Water and Power Development Authority cricketers or similar Has played 2 FC matches, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in FC matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the minimum stanrard to keep articles is GNG. The cricket inclusion standards are a bunch of rubbish and have been over and over again been shown to not at all predict actual passing of GNG. This article very clearly fails the multiple significant prong of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Ali (cricketer, born 1987)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As with so many other AfDs, this request has been made on the basis of WP:GNG when the relevant standard is WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of having played first class cricket (and maybe List A if you believe CricInfo). DevaCat1 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played 5 FC and 1 List-A matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in five FC matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the standard for all articles is GNG, and this article lacks multiple cases of significant coverage in indepdent, reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, the only sources in the article are scorecards or statistical databases, making the CRIN pass irrelevant. SportingFlyer T·C 18:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Shropshire County Cricket Club List A players. Daniel (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Roberts (Shropshire cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Admittedly it is harder to find info on players with common names, but I don't think taking a well-known player's wicket in a List A match is enough to justify a Wikipedia article. By this point there are many fewer newspapers on the BNA, but possible references seem to be false positives, for example what may have been a reference in a 1988 Staffordshire Sentinel turned out to refer to a Shropshire darts player called John Roberts with cricket scores listed alongside it ... RobinCarmody (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG is irrelevant here, as he passes WP:CRIN, which is the relevant notability guideline, by virtue of having played multiple List A matches. It doesn't matter whether he took one wicket, no wickets, or did nothing at all- a List A appearance is enough to satisfy WP:CRIN. As noted on other articles, the search function on BNA is hopeless, and so a lack of finding players on it indicates nothing- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Shropshire County Cricket Club List A players has played 2 List-A matches, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Rugbyfan22 if referenced - this is completely unsourced, so I'd only redirect if a source can be found for the list. Fails WP:GNG, which trumps any sports-specific SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has existed for 11 years and has no sources. This should be so open and shut a case of deletion, that it should be proposed deletable on those grounds alone. Verrifiability rules insist that all articles must be linked to reliable sources. This article has absolutely none.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, the two List-A appearances doesn't seem to be covered by any substantial source. --Ashley yoursmile! 19:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oswell Borradaile[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really don't think technically passing N:CRIC is OK when GNG is so comprehensively failed. "O. Borradaile" (how he would have been identified) brings up two references in The Times, neither of which seem relevant and indeed one of which is from well before he was born. The British Newspaper Archive brings up some references with the initial amid the many false positives, but they seem to be very much WP: MILL, and unlike with players from, say, 30 years ago - the oft-described "black hole" - the BNA has enough papers from this period, including a specialist cricket one, to be representative. His full name brings up one false-positive reference on the BNA. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Strangely, if I put "Borradaile" and "Essex" into the British Newspaper Archive search engine, I come up with more than 2,000 references for the period of his lifetime. Not all will be him, but the majority on the first few pages I checked were. Johnlp (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG is irrelevant here, as he passes WP:CRIN, which is the relevant notability guideline, by virtue of having played in a first class match. It really doesn't make the slightest difference how comprehensively he fails GNG. In any case, to be sure he fails GNG for a player active in the 19th century you would have to do proper archival research in hard copy, rather than online, and the BNA is notoriously bad at having proper references, as the machine reading of text has failed in a large number of places. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Essex County Cricket Club players Has played 1 FC match, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep On review and with the article having been updated, changing my vote to keep due to notability for post cricket career working for Essex CC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rugbyfan22. The "passes CRIN so GNG is irrelevant" argument is useless, as all articles must pass GNG (well, almost, but this is not one of the rare technicalities). SportingFlyer T·C 19:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rated a significant obituary in Wisden on his death in 1935, perhaps more as an administrator than as a player. He was the secretary of Essex County Cricket Club for 31 years, gained first-class status for them and prevented them from going bankrupt. Played "occasionally" in county cricket, but rated "an outstanding figure in club cricket". If the nominator hasn't looked in Wisden, I think we're entitled to know where they have looked to find no coverage whatsoever on an apparently prominent cricket person. Johnlp (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I maybe retired, but have this page on my watchlist. Clearly a notable cricketing individual, especially as an administrator for over 30 years, helping Essex's ascension to first-class status and maintaining the survival of the club. These are the very sort of lazy nominations that have been the norm of late, with "...no coverage found" being the given reason. This obituary establishes where he was educated and his role as an administrator, both with Essex and the MCC during the Great War. This is in addition to what Johnlp has sourced. His association with Essex and role played in their transformation into one of England's leading cricket teams easily passes GNG and CRIN. Anyway, thought I'd add my tuppence worth. StickyWicket (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If his having an article was only based on his playing career, I would have doubts about keeping it, but it seems to me the Wisden obituary would suggest he was notable as an administrator, particularly in the rise of Essex CC. Dunarc (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayub Sheikh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG is irrelevant here, as he passes WP:CRIN, which is the relevant notability guideline, by virtue of having played in a first class match. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC match, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches and no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is always the guideline for inclusion. It is the basic minimum that absolutely every article in Wikipedia needs to meet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G7. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Biden Agenda[edit]

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

Orphan of a political campaign with no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, fails WP:GNG. 7 hits on Google for "Stop Biden Agenda" -"Biden's", and 86 hits for "StopBidenAgenda" following a Fox News report. A single Fox News article is insufficient to demonstrate notability, particularly as it should be used with caution as a source for US politics (WP:FOXNEWS). Jr8825 • Talk 18:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 18:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 18:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 18:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could possibly gain notability at some point if it really takes off but as of now there's nothing there. Possibly redirect to Citizens United (organization)#Positions and advocacy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nowhere near enough coverage or information about the agenda itself for it to warrant its own page Dexxtrall (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and convert to passing mention on relevant group's page. Nothing about this justifies having its own page. ser! (chat to me). 22:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Creator Yeah, I hoped throughout the day that more news stories would come out on it, but none did. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are for deletion why not just request it for deletion under G7? JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources doesn't show WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - page has now been G7'd. This can probably be closed. ser! (chat to me). 17:46, 26 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) 13:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edmiston, California[edit]

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

It's not at all clear why, fairly late in the topo game, they decided to label what appears to have been a farm as "Edmiston", but there were never more than one or two buildings there, and there hasn't been anything in decades. Searching is inhibited by a ton of last name hits, so I can find essentially nothing out about this spot. But the possibility that it was ever anything notable is remote. Mangoe (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the fact that "Crazy Bob's" car repair is near here I don't think it has enough to stand on it's own. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears this is where R.W. Edmiston lived, a pioneer vineyard owner in the county.[23][24]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Milowent and nom; this seems to be a dot on a map based on the owner of a farm. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2014 Arkansas elections#Lieutenant Governor. Daniel (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Burkhalter[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. No independent sources. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable as a businessman, real estate developer and less so as a highway commissioner and failed Lt. Governor candidate. There are more sources about him and his business dealings than I can shake a stick at. arktimes.com has 6 pages tagged with his name and here's a quick sample of other articles that mention him and his business dealings [25] [26] [27] [28]. Oh, and he used to be a stripper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage related to his business dealings is trivial, the failed Lt. Governor candidacy fails WP:NPOL. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2014 Arkansas elections#Lieutenant_Governor. The only real WP:SIGCOV appears to stem from his campaign for Lt. Gov. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would also support this redirection. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he is notable and can add to this page. Unless this is part of an intermittent crusade in which case I won't bother. There are much less notable people with pages than this gent, but so many editors seem to think Arkansas people are irrelevant just because they've never heard of them that its hardly worth discussing. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 00:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof to support that SailingInABathTub nominated this article out of anti-Arkansas bias? Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, candidates are generally not considered to be notable unless they receive and inordinate amount of coverage (ex: Christine O'Donnell) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument that proves notability for the subject. You can assume intentions all you want, but deletion/merging/redirecting is the most common outcome for unelected political candidates regardless of what state or nation they are from. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency, I reviewed and nominated this article because its notability was questioned by another editor in this AfD discussion. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having reviewed the sources, I agree the sigcov of him is as a failed candidate, which generally aren't notable under WP:NPOL - don't really see that in the real estate articles, which simply mention that he owns stuff. No problem with a redirect if consensus comes down to that. SportingFlyer T·C 20:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local level businessman. Failed candidates for lieutenant governor are almost never notable, so his politician actions almost assure us deletion on those grounds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarmayacar[edit]

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

Non notable venture capital firm with sources based on routine announcement. A BEFORE search doesn't show sources that would help to establish notability under WP:NCORP. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an independent entity, no clear merge or redirect target. Between keep and delete, it's delete for the reasons mentioned by the nominiator. Also fails the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Searches show announcement-based coverage of investment in and by the company, but these are trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. There is also some passing mention of this among other VC firms in its locale, but not the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I actually wanted to merge the draft and article, but I did not know how to request merges. (non-admin closure) 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 California wildfires[edit]

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

Too early for article creation. No significant coverage, almost duplicate of Draft:2021 California wildfires, and no fire exceeding 1K acres. This article should be created when the fire season is at a major spotlight, like 2020 California wildfires was in August. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I haven't submitted my draft for this subject, it's too early 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ordinarily I'd say WP:TOOEARLY, but there have been several high-profile articles written about the January fires, or predicting the 2021 season based on unusual weather trends, including WaPo, LA Times, and USA Today. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 17:34, 25 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) 18:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheman Shaik[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP claims to be of a computer scientist, inventor, and an author. I can't find anything strong enough to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Quite low h-index of 5 on google scholar. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oppose/keep The subject is primarily a computer scientist and inventor with 6 patented technologies with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as follows:

1. Absolute public key cryptographic system and method surviving private-key compromise with other advantages

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22Absolute+Public+Key+Cryptography%22&OS=

2. Password self encryption method and system and encryption by keys generated from personal secret information

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/8023647

3. Codeless dynamic websites including general facilities

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7770122

4. Dynamic Language Text Generation http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=24&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7721222&OS=7721222&RS=7721222

5. 3d Mouse For Computers https://uspto.report/patent/app/20200089339

6. Defeating solution to phishing attacks through counter challenge authentication

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=10,880,331&OS=10,880,331&RS=10,880,331

The author profile may not be that strong as per Google Scholar score, I completely agree, but as an inventor Wikipedia should consider the article as patents are granted after due assessment by the USPTO. Regarding general notability, the subject has been highlighted by the leading publications of India and Arab.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-info-tech/new-data-encryption-technique/article1750219.ece http://www.arabnews.com/node/290802

Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Patents are meaningless. Anyone can register a patent, but it's only if it's tested in court that it can be found to be an original, enforceable, idea. And it's only if reliable sources report on that that it can show notability. Computer science has one of the highest citation rates of any field, at least on Google Scholar, but this computer scientist has hardly any citations to his work. As the claim has been made that the article subject has notability in an academic field I will put it on the relevant deletion list. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil Bridger, his patents have been tested in court too. Here are the facts and references:

*Patent 8023647

Here is the list of litigants for patent infringement case (all cases closed):

Gucci America, Inc.
VMWare, Inc.
Hewlett-Parkard Co.
Foxconn Technology Group
THG Energy Solutions, LLC
Siemens Corp.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Raytheon Company
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Chipotle Mexican Grill
AT&T, Inc.
Texas Freight Services, In
iReverse Home Loans, LLC
Cashstar, Inc.
True Media, LLC
Startups.co, LLC
Mainstream Technologies, Inc.
NC Financial Solutions, LLC
Verizon Communications
The Rocket Science Group, LLC d/b/a MailChimp
Edmunds.com, Inc.
Marriott International, Inc.
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.

References:

https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2019-00498 https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/8023647 (under Related Cases, check PTAB (2) and Litigation (23) *Patent 7721222 Litigants in the patent infringement case were:

Walmart
Target

All cases closed. Reference: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/UniversalCipherLLCvTargetCorporationDocketNo219cv00163EDTexMay072/1?1614374019

Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Authoring patents is not a claim of notability (they can only lead to notability if they gain significant outside attention, not in evidence here) and we have nothing else. He has a few publications on Google scholar but with an h-index of 1 and total citation count of 3, so no chance of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG Dexxtrall (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being granted patents doesn't imply notability, and as argued above, there's no chance of WP:PROF#C1. The sources provided above are a puff piece and a passing mention, not enough for the GNG. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. XOR'easter (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete h-index of 1, clearly fails WP:PROF#C1, everything said for the patents so no WP:GNG given. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One correction here CommanderWaterford David Eppstein, the h-index on Google Scholar is 5 not 1 with 214 citations. In addition, on Microsoft Academics, the number of citations are 234.
The significance of the patent No 7,721,222 that helps with non-English text generation can be understood from the fact that there is a growing base of non-English computer, or phone users who prefer to engage with their computer or mobile application using Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian, That, Lao, etc. They do internet searching, authentication, email, chat, wireless messaging, document preparation, online advertisement creation, form filling in e-commerce etc., in non-English languages.

The above patent has received 45 citations from 30 assignees including technology companies like Sony, IBM, Microsoft, and Google.

The patent 8023647 has 127 Patent citations, 21 Non-patent citations
As far as GNG is concerned, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) admits that scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. The subject has cryptography and other niche-specific articles on Microsoft Academic and Google Scholar and individual scientific journals like:
International Journal of Computer Science, Engineering and Application (AJCSEA): http://airccse.org/journal/ijcsea/current2020.html
International Journal on Cryptography and Information Security (IJCIS): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3767403
International Journal of Network Security and Its Applications (IJNSA): http://airccse.org/journal/jnsa21_current.html
Computer Science & Engineering: An International Journal (CSEIJ): http://airccse.org/journal/cseij/vol11.html

Don't you think they establish his notability along with the coverage on leading newspapers like below:

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-info-tech/new-data-encryption-technique/article1750219.ece
http://www.arabnews.com/node/290802

? Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patents are not scholarly publications and do not count towards metrics based on scholarly publications (WP:PROF#C1). They are also explicitly listed as not counting towards WP:PROF#C7, academic impact in the outside world. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein thanks for the attention. Even we ignore the scholarly publications, is there no importance of the inventions? Citations of the patents are also an approval of the importance of the inventions. Don't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomwiki 40 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'importance' is subjective. Inclusion in Wikipedia are guided by it's nobility criteria not how we view subject's importance. RationalPuff (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RationalPuff, if 'importance' is subjective, then members should reconsider the deletion nomination. Here are the usability or impact of the patents:

Patent 8,023,647 or its encryption technique is used by over 20 companies including Verizon, AT&T, JP Morgan, and Lockheed Martin.

references: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2019/1/3/universal-cipher-formerly-cumberland-systems-patent-challenged-as-likely-invalid https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/8023647

Patent 7721222 or its Dynamic language text generation system and method has been used with phone and tablet devices. reference: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/walmart-target-sued-over-text-generation-tech-patent

Patent 7,721,222 has been cited by leading tech firms like Sony, IBM, Microsoft, and Google. Patent 8023647 has been used as citations by Apple Inc., Microsoft, Oracle and other significant technology firms.Who is citing the patent is more important than how many have used it as a citation.Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Requesting members to review the notability evidences shared on this page. I have improved the article also. Hope it is better now. Despite all, if you think deletion is the only way left, please respond to my comments. Waiting for your response.Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as has already been pointed out, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Wisdomwiki 40: to clarify how Wikipedia works. We consider something important (notable) when other independent, reliable, secondary sources discuss a subject. You link to a lot of patents, but those are primary sources that are not independent of the subject - they tell us nothing about notability. Rather, we need to see magazine, newspapers and books that discuss the person. Those sources need to be independent (ie. not paid for or connected to the subject in some way). Reliable (ie. not self-published and known for editorial control). In-depth (not minor or trivial mentions). Multiple sources. Then we can say, yes, this person is notable because other people have decided independently to write about them. -- GreenC 19:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:GreenC what's your thought on citations from the following newspapers-based that are known for quality journalism with unbiased editorial practices:

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-info-tech/new-data-encryption-technique/article1750219.ece
http://www.arabnews.com/node/290802
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/walmart-target-sued-over-text-generation-tech-patent

Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:GreenC, XOR'easter, RationalPuff, Onel5969, David Eppstein, TT me, CommanderWaterford, improvements to the page regarding WP:GNG notability done based on citations from independent secondary sources in the print media in multiple languages:

Al, AALEM (Arabic, Monthly Magazine), February, 2007, Tenth Year, No, 94, Muharram 1428 H

References: https://archive.org/details/arabic-al-aalem-magazine-feb-2007-cover-page/Arabic%20Magazine%20Cover%20Page.jpg

Arab News (English, Daily Newspaper) - 2006-08-27

Reference: https://archive.org/details/arab-news-invention-by-indian-can-help-local-business-save-billions/NewsDetails_Invention%20by%20Indian%20can%20save%20businesses%20save%20billions.jpg

Eenadu (Telugu, Daily Newspaper) 2012-07-27: https://archive.org/details/eenadu-paper-clip-cheman-shaik_202102

Telulgu to English Translation: https://ia601502.us.archive.org/21/items/eenadu-paper-clip-cheman-shaik/Eenadu%20Paperclip%20Tamil%20to%20English%20Translation.pdf Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you are making claims about scientific research/discoveries/invention, tabloids coverage rarely hold water. Do you have any technical/scientific/technological secondary publication that are talking about the subject? RationalPuff (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RationalPuff, this book places Absolute Public Key Cryptography, one of the inventions, as one of the key crypto techniques. It's already there with ISBN number under Publications section: https://www.routledge.com/Handbook-of-Surveillance-Technologies/Petersen/p/book/9781439873151 Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That book does not say anything about this technique being "key", but just mentions it as one of the techniques for which patents have been taken out. It doesn't even mention Cheman Shaik, the subject of this article. Sorry, but you are wasting your time arguing here in the light of the lack of citations to the subject's scholarly work. In general, for a computer scientist, we require many thousands of citations, not less than a handful. Why are you so fixated on this article, given the subject's obvious lack of notability? It is very difficult to avoid thinking that you have a conflict of interest here, and that you have been paid to produce this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil Bridger, please check this one. https://archive.org/details/handbook-of-surveillance-technologies-absolute-public-key-cryptography/page/n1/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomwiki 40 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked the same thing (hosted at the Google Books site) before I made my last comment. All that link does is to confirm that this book doesn't even mention Cheman Shaik. All that you are doing with your interventions here is to make Shaik look more and more like a patent troll. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, the author has mentioned the U.S. Patent #708882, I'm reading your patent troll thanks for sharing. Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are scraping the barrel and wasting everyone's time here. You need reliable and significant coverage that talks about the subject not about the things the subject might have been associated with. It's not Wikipedia's job to fill the blanks. Moreover, with a few obscure citations this subject is not even close to the nobility threshold. RationalPuff (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that this man is probably both important enough and notable enough to have an article. My problem, and I think the problem with searches concerning WP:GNG and WP:Inventor (See Wikipedia:Notability (people)), is that I don't speak a lot of the relevant languages. Indeed, that is a problem of Systemic bias in Wikipedia. I am not criticizing anyone for that; it's a fact. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He works in the US. If there is relevant local coverage it would be in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which disregards the Arabic and Telugu references that already exist in the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article are claims in newspapers that he has invented something, which newspapers are notorious for believing on the basis of a press release with no support from academic sources. It's pretty obvious from reading the patents that they only consist of gross generalities - something that patent trolls do. I have been accused before of being a dyed-in-the-wool inclusionist, but can see no reason why we should include an article about this person. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not accusing anybody of anything. And you could very well be right. I haven't taken a position. Thanks for your input. OTOH, reasonable minds may differ on the conclusion. YMMV. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judeo-nazarenism[edit]

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

This is a translation of the French article which I proposed for deletion and was deleted. It was deleted because this article is pure OR, no source used discusse the topic, be it directly or indirectly. A user on the French WP even found out that a source being used did not contain the information the main user who wrote the article had claimed (link to the history page is dead since the article was deleted). This article is pure OR and sources in it may be used fallaciously, therefore I think it should be deleted whether the subject it covers may be notable or not. Veverve (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if I may add my humble opinion :-), the French article was an original research and some contents didn't fit to their so-called "sources". So I agree with Veverve's statement. (If my post is irrelevant, please delete it.) Manacore (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. As the French original (which has never been fully translated) has been deleted, the English translation should be deleted too. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Veverve. I find no books that mention this term (in English), and the original French references don't seem to support the article content. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After disregarding the input by Mcgaugh because of apparent WP:COI and of PopePompus because they seem to misunderstand what this AfD is about, there is rough consensus, particularly among experienced editors, to delete both articles as POV forks. Sandstein 10:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radial acceleration relation[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK of MOND. Tercer (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating Mass-asymptotic speed relation for deletion together with it. Same problem. Can also be considered a WP:POVFORK of Tully–Fisher relation. Tercer (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep These pages seem to be spinoffs rather than POV forks. In any case, POV forks are not addressed by deletion – see WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The article title Modified Newtonian dynamics seems ambiguous in describing such topics as there are other theories which modified Newton, such as Einstein's. We should expect there to be several pages about the matter and others include Galaxy rotation curve and Tully–Fisher relation. Per WP:NOTPAPER, we are free to break this down across as many pages as we wish. See also WP:BITE. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing ambiguous about Modified Newtonian Dynamics. It's the name of Milgrom's theory, which the article is about. The articles are not spinoffs, they are strident in saying that Modified Newtonian Dynamics has been proven to be true, whereas MOND is balanced in saying that it's a minority point of view in physics. Frankly, I find your behaviour appalling. Every time I see a !vote from you in an AfD is an ill-informed Keep. You don't seem to know or even care what the article is about, what matters is religiously preventing anything from being deleted. I should take you to WP:ANI for disruptive behaviour. Tercer (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the topic just fine. The pages in question are presumably bullish about the MOND theory because there has been some recent support for that theory whereas the competing dark matter theory is not doing so well – see New Research Supports ‘Modified Gravity’ Theory, for example. These various theories are not settled and so we should be tolerant and adjust as the science develops. The pages in question are about specific technical details rather than being a straightforward duplicate of some existing page. And even if they were duplicates, WP:REDUNDANTFORK states that "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." So, what is the reason for holding a deletion discussion?

For another similar case, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plate theory (volcanism). Again, there are competing theories and some natural tension between them. My view is that deletion is not appropriate because the science is not settled in that case either. I am not alone in that view and so it goes.

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These pages are bullish about MOND because they were just created by a SPA that only cares about saying that MOND is right and dark matter does not exist. There is no recent support for MOND, the idea is as dead as it always was. A fringe group of physicists keep writing the same papers about rotational curves of galaxies, while mainstream cosmologists complete ignore this nonsense. Tercer (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is odd as a recent book on MOND has won the PROSE award. So the statement that MOND is not supported or "is dead" is not in agreement with the facts. Physicists do not write about MOND, but there are a number of astronomers considering the predictions of MOND as they apply to the rotation curves (not rotational) of galaxies.Schombert — Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC) — James Schombert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While many different things could be called modifications of Newtonian mechanics, the term Modified Newtonian Dynamics and the abbreviation MOND are specific. As we've seen before, the bag-of-words approach to judging notability does not work for technical topics. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in either of these articles is it claimed that MOND "has been proven to be true". All that is stated, is that the observational confirmation of the MONDian predictions lends support to the theory. There is nothing that is in the least controversial about such a statement. With regard to "spinoffs": there is a crucial distinction that is being missed here. Both relations under discussion (MASSR, RAR) are novel predictions of Milgrom's theory. The Tully-Fisher relation is a purely empirical relation that is not predicted by any theory. The ability of MOND to make successful novel predictions sets it quite apart from dark-matter theories, including from the standard cosmological model. This is stated clearly in the references, especially the book by Merritt (2020). The successful prediction of these two relations by Milgrom's theory is a watershed event in cosmology and both relations fully deserve their own entry. Astronome de Meudon (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC) — Astronome de Meudon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Oh no, they don't? Let's see in Radial acceleration relation: Milgrom's prediction has been confirmed by observational studies. Confirmation of the prediction demonstrates that the internal kinematics of spiral galaxies are predictable based on the distribution of the visible mass alone, which adds support to the hypothesis that dark matter does not exist. Also The results are striking: in virtually every galaxy yet studied in this way, Milgrom's theory correctly predicts the observed rotation curve.[5] No algorithm capable of doing this has yet been presented under the standard cosmological model. And the fact that Milgrom's theory correctly predicts the relation without any adjustment of parameters means that the existence of the RAR provides stronger support for MOND than for the standard cosmological model.. Pretty strident in my book. Let's take a look at Mass-asymptotic speed relation then. The relation was first predicted by Mordehai Milgrom in 1983; it was confirmed in a number of observational studies about twenty years later. and then Confirmation of Milgrom's prediction lends support to the idea that dark matter does not exist. Also The most recent studies have verified that the observed BTFR has all the properties predicted by Milgrom's MASSR and Milgrom's explanation of the rotation curve anomaly satisfies this condition by virtue of successfully predicting the MASSR/BTFR. By contrast, explanation of the rotation-curve anomaly under the standard cosmological model is ad hoc:. At this rate I'm just quoting the entire articles, so I'll stop.

Most importantly, what you are saying is controversial: these are not predictions of MOND, these are particular cases of the rotational curve of galaxies that MOND was designed to fit. It's entirely unsurprising that MOND can fit them somewhat. What you are claiming was an watershed event in cosmology was entirely unnoticed by mainstream cosmologists, who kept ignoring MOND as they always have. Tercer (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is MOND, and doesn't need a separate article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Obvious POVFORKs are obvious. There's no way to split hairs with phrasing like Confirmation of the prediction demonstrates that the internal kinematics of spiral galaxies are predictable based on the distribution of the visible mass alone, which adds support to the hypothesis that dark matter does not exist. We're not here to rouse support for nonstandard theories or to drive a change to the scientific status quo. (Nor do we base our evaluations of scientific hypotheses upon unsigned stories from random churnalism websites.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For another source, see The radial acceleration relation in galaxy clusters. This is specifically about the Radial acceleration relation which is a particular pattern of observations, The paper discusses how the various theories can accommodate these observations. MOND is just one of these theories and so the suggestion that RAR=MOND seems to be incorrect. What seems to be needed in the page in question is a better focus on the nature and details of RAR. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That paper discusses MOND at length, with other modified-gravity proposals name-dropped in passing. XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some quick bibliometry: at least 80% of papers that use the term "radial acceleration relation" mention MOND specifically. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Actually two questions:

Didn't Milgrom formulate MOND to explain the observed galaxy rotation curves, i.e. the fact that MOND explains these aren't actually a prediction but a postdiction?
What exactly are the radial acceleration relation & the mass-asymptotic speed relation? The RAR article says it is "a relation between the centripetal acceleration, V²/R, of a star orbiting in a disk (or spiral) galaxy, and the gravitational acceleration due to the matter in the galaxy", while the MASR article says it is "a predicted relation between the total mass of a disk (or spiral) galaxy, and its large-radius rotation speed". How are these two topics distinct from galaxy rotation curve? Banedon (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a straightforward postdiction. The "discovery" these papers are claiming is that the fit between MOND and the observations is really really good, and that such a good fit can't be explained by ΛCDM. Ignoring the fact that the fit doesn't work at all for galaxy clusters, and that ΛCDM can account very well for the correlation [29][30][31][32].
They are not distinct. MASR is just the rotation speed at a large distance from the centre, that is, a single point from the galaxy rotation curve. The radial acceleration relation is just a different way of presenting the discrepancy between the observed rotational velocity and the one predicted from baryonic matter alone; instead of plotting velocity versus radius they plot observed acceleration versus predicted acceleration. Tercer (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The argument to delete this page is that it is the same as MOND. This is not correct. The radial acceleration relation is an empirical relation that is observed to exist. It exists independent of any theoretical consideration specific to MOND. The paper establishing the radial acceleration relation as an empirical entity [33] was refereed and published in the premier journal of physics (Physical Review Letters) and has been cited 284 times according to [34]. This places it in the top percentile of citation rate: most papers in the field do not have anything like this kind of impact on other refereed publications. This is a good indication that the scientific community takes the radial acceleration relation seriously irrespective of whether that is also true for the theory MOND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgaugh (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC) — Mcgaugh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Your username is curiously similar to Stacy McGaugh, an author of the paper you are so passionately defending and of many of the references in the articles being AfD'ed. Furthermore, almost all of your edits have been on MOND-related topics. Don't you have a WP:COI to declare? Tercer (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McGaugh and Schombert (see comment above) are authors of the RAR discovery paper (PRL cited above) along with Lelli. We repeat our emphasis that the RAR is neither a pro or con MOND discovery. It is an empirical relation outlining the coupling between baryons and dark matter. It is also a fact that no current proposal for a dark matter particle predicts this coupling. This allows us to entertain other explanations for the origin of flat rotation curves. We are not the authors of the RAR entry, but we are experts in this area. Is it a COI to have experts weight in on a topic that we are very familiar with? Do you have a response to Stacy's statement that the RAR discovery is one of the most highly cited articles in a peer review journal? This discovery does threaten the cold dark matter paradigm, that does not seem a sufficient reason for deletion. Schombert — Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC) — James Schombert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please read WP:COI. Editors that have a conflict of interest must declare it, and should not edit the articles about their work. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own papers. Furthermore, you have created this account solely for the purpose of commenting in this AfD. This is forbidden, and makes you a WP:MEATPUPPET. The fact that McGaugh's paper is highly cited is irrelevant for this discussion. The problem with this article is that it mostly reproduces the contents of MOND, but heavily promoting it, while MOND is more neutral. This constitutes a WP:POVFORK, and is forbidden. Tercer (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete looking at the PRL paper this is a genuine empirical relation, but it is not intrinsically related to MOND. In particular, per this paper [35], "Almost immediately after McGaugh, Lelli & Schombert (2016) published their RAR relation paper, Keller & Wadsley (2017) responded by demonstrating that a similar relation can be obtained using ΛCDM hydrodynamic simulations of disk galaxies". So the relation is not the compelling argument in favor of MOND the article makes it out to be. The article could be keepable if and only if it is greatly rewritten to emphasize what the relation is, and what the competing explanations are. Banedon (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to strenuously disagree both with Tercer and Banedon. (i) The RAR is a bona-fide, prior prediction of MOND. The RAR relation was not known to exist before MOND predicted it, and its observational confirmation came as a surprise. (ii) The MOND theory was definitely not designed or constructed to reproduce the RAR relation, or, for that matter, rotation curves in general. (iii) There is a qualitative difference between confirming a theory, and confirming a prediction of a theory. Example: Einstein’s theory predicts the bending of starlight; the prediction was observationally confirmed; and that fact constitutes support for (NOT proof of) Einstein’s theory. In precisely the same way, Milgrom’s theory predicts the RAR; the prediction was observationally confirmed; and that fact constitutes support for (NOT proof of) MOND. The article as written makes this distinction quite clearly. Tercer, in particular, does not seem to appreciate this important distinction. (iv) There is also an important qualitative distinction between using a theory to make a prior prediction, and adjusting a theory, after the fact, to explain an observation. MOND does the former with respect to the RAR. The Keller & Wadsley paper cited by Banedon does, at best, the latter. As the RAR article correctly points out, the former is generally considered to be much more compelling support for a theory than the latter. I agree with James Schombert and Mcgaugh: given its citation record, the RAR is an extremely significant result (whether considered as a theoretical prediction, or an observed fact) and absolutely deserves its own page. If Tercer and Banedon are unhappy about the existence of a relation that was successfully predicted by a non-standard theory, my advice is: Get over it!Jeremygoodman (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now what on Earth are you talking about? Milgrom's original paper was explicitly about explaining the rotation curves of galaxies. Also, the RAR cannot possibly be a prediction of MOND, because it directly follows from the rotation curves. Milgrom himself said as much [36]: Given that this formula had already been shown to reproduce correctly the observed rotation curves from the baryon distribution (as a MOND effect), it must have been clear, a priory, that it should describe correctly the MDAR, which is but a summary of rotation curves.

I'm also very curious to know how, after not editing Wikipedia for 7 years, you came across this AfD. Tercer (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I don't think it's the job of Wikipedia editors to decide whether or not MOND is dead. If the idea was discussed in papers published in respected peer-reviewed journals, then it is notable. That notability doesn't go away even if the theory is later discredited. After all, there's a Wikipedia article on Lamarckism. If the tone of the article does not seem neutral, or if it ignores later developments that disprove the idea, then the page should be modified, or maybe merged, but not deleted.PopePompus (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm afraid you misunderstood the purpose of this AfD. I'm not arguing that MOND should be deleted (and indeed I think it shouldn't be deleted). I'm saying that Radial acceleration relation and Mass-asymptotic speed relation should be deleted. Not because MOND is dead, but because they are stridently saying that MOND is true, whereas the MOND article notes correctly that it is a minority opinion in physics. This constitutes a WP:POVFORK, which is forbidden. Tercer (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this doesn't seem to address the AfD at hand. Nobody is arguing that MOND should be deleted (after all, we have articles on the plum pudding model and phlogiston, and many more such things besides). We're not concerned with the article MOND, but with these opinionated outgrowths of it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a reason for Radial acceleration relation to be a separate article from MOND if the relation forms a core argument for the existence of the theory. It should be discussed in the MOND article with context and crticism, and has no evidence of separate notability from MOND. The Mass-asymptotic speed relation article has no reason to exist either, as the topic is literally the exact same as the Tully–Fisher relation, making it by almost any definition a POVFORK. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article on Mass-asymptotic speed relation, since this is not sufficiently different from the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation to justify a separate article. For the Radial acceleration relation article, I would lean towards keep, since this relation has been the subject of some highly cited papers, which gives evidence for notability. And, it has also been discussed and interpreted in the Lambda-CDM context (here's a new preprint that I just saw, and the introduction section gives a good overview), so it has some broader utility beyond its connection to MOND. But, if the RAR article is kept, it should be reduced to a stub and then rewritten from scratch with a focus on NPOV. The way the article is currently written has serious NPOV problems. Aldebarium (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffar Suleiman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG is irrelevant here, as he passes WP:CRIN, which is the relevant notability guideline, by virtue of having played in a first class match. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC game, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few games, but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers or similar Per Rugbyfan and Strom, doesnt seem to pass GNG, and have enough third-party sources Totalstgamer (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers - no evidence of passing WP:GNG but a decent WP:ATD exists Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first G in GNG stands for general, which means it is always relevant to articles. All articles must at least pass GNG, SNGs help us distinguish where we do not keep articles when an apparance of minimally passing the GNG exists. Such as with millions of non-notable political candidates who have gotten some minimal coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, the single first-class appearance doesn't seem to be covered by any substantial source. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Shaikh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG is irrelevant here, as he passes WP:CRIN by virtue of having played in a first class match. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC game, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, the single first-class appearance doesn't seem to be covered by any substantial source. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y. Radia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG is irrelevant here, as he passes WP:CRIN by virtue of having played in a first class match. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC game, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few appearances and no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, the single first-class appearance doesn't seem to be covered by any substantial source. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Laheji[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is of no relevance; he has played a first class match and therefore passes WP:CRIN. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC game, and has a short obituary in Wisden, but not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches but no/limited coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to having enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P. Jadeja[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is of no relevance; he has played a first class match and therefore passes WP:CRIN. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC game, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few appearances but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, the single first-class appearance doesn't seem to be covered by any substantial source. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Seth[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is of no relevance; he has played a first class match and therefore passes WP:CRIN. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC match, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is general so it applies to all articles. The total failure of it here needs to lead to deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers - I strongly disagree with CRIN taking priority over GNG in this case. In fact, by consensus, a trivial passing of CRIN is a weak, weak presumption of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, the single first-class appearance doesn't seem to be covered by any substantial source. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harpal Zala[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is of no relevance; he has played a first class match and therefore passes WP:CRIN. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC game, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few appearances but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG = general notability guideline. This applies to all articles. Subject specific guidelines are meant to suggest what articles are likely to pass GNG, but with cricket the current guidelines have been shown to be extremely and woefully inadequate and would be deleted if we did not have a cabal of hard core inclusionists fighting every reasonable and measured attempt to improve the encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers - this completely fails GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, the single first-class appearance doesn't seem to be covered by any substantial source. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ateaa Tina[edit]

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

raging advert about a person who doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSICIAN as of yet. CUPIDICAE💕 15:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, Ateaa Tina, a singer/vocalist of 20 years experience meets the musician criteria.. She has albums, plus she has worked with legendary Ghanaian artistes like Daddy Lumba and Esther Amoako.https://music.apple.com/us/album/bubra/1554266363 Secondly, the article does in no way advertise or promote the artist. I am not affiliated or associated to Ateaa Tina, who is a recognized brand in Ghana^[1]. All the article talks about is her works in the music industry, career, early life and personal life.. It will be very unfair to delete the article. Mellowdeaous (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ Hit360 https://www.hitz360.com/remembering-daddy-lumbas-sensational-backing-vocalist-ateaa-tina/. Retrieved 17 December 2020. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Delete who she has worked with has no bearing on notability on Wikipedia. The sources are weak to very weak. YouTube and Instagram have no significance as sources.Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but @Velella you want it deleted because you are ignorant about the artist.. Ateaa Tina is well known in Ghana for her influence in the music industry with albums to her credit. She went on a musical hiatus for about 15 years, that is why there are few sources.. Also, in the 21st century, social media can be used as quality source..I also provided three other website sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellowdeaous (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - telling another editor that they are ignorant is hardly going to win you any friends or support!. I won't take it personally but merely note that notability on Wikipedia does not depend on editors "knowing" about the subject. Rather the reverse. Editors rely on seeing reliable and independent sources discussing the subject. The lack of such sources is what lead to my view on the article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Velella Sorry if I sounded rude, but I meant you don't know much about Ghanaian artistes so it is easy for you to make that decision. Jyst because there aren't much written about her on the internet doesn't mean she isn't a notable artiste. It will be very unfair to delete the article. Mellowdeaous (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm also going to have to go with delete for this. I can't find any sources discussing her or reviewing her music aside from the Hit360 piece and a scam ebook site that promises to let me download an ebook that shows what Daddy Lumba's backup singer looks like now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything by way of reliable sources that cover her Dexxtrall (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please there are five reliable sources that cover her: Hitz360.com, Ghanaslayers.com, Nanacady.com, itunes, Youtube. Please check well! Thank you. Mellowdeaous (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are considered reliable sources as per WP:SOURCE Dexxtrall (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please why are they not reliable sources? I have seen thousands of articles on wikipedia with such sources like these.. It will be very harsh to delete it Mellowdeaous (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Also, this is my first article I have created on wikipedia, ad I intend to write as many as I can.. Please have mercy as this is my first time.. I will try to make it better. Pleeeeaaase... Mellowdeaous (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellowdeaous: This is not how things go around here. Begging will not change anyone's minds. I am sorry, but she is not a notable topic as of now. She can have her article if there's multiple reliable sources. I don't know about the first three sites you named, but itunes and youtube are not reliable because 1) they are not independent of the subject, also itunes is a retail site, 2) anyone can edit youtube. So that's why they are unreliable. And if "there aren't much written about her on the internet", then she's not notable (unless you have print coverage). Calling your fellow editors ignorant doesn't help though, and it is not nice. Neither is the "reason" (which is not a reason, actually) that you have seen thousands of articles with sources like these. If they are sourced to those sites, they will most likely go to Afd as well. Don't worry, we will get those sites... eventually. By the way, read these: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:SOURCE. Good luck to Ateaa and thank you for dropping by! Regards, GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the notability of this backup vocalist may seem obscure at first glance because she is "only" a backup singer from Ghana, West Africa, she is notable as a featured African female singer. For WP's purposes, "fame & fortune" does not equate to WP:N. See this article which states the following: Adaka Tea, which features Ateaa Tina, was released in 2003 from the album, “Bubra”. The song is referred to as "one of the most popular Daddy Lumba songs of all time." That tells us notability is there, and all we need to do is find the sources. I'm of the mind that this BLP is notable per WP:NPOSSIBLE, and because of the fact that she qualifies as a major contributor to a hit song, among many others. Atsme 💬 📧 12:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ghanaslayers is not even close to being an RS, that whole thing is a grand total of 3 sentences and is just a lyrics site (and a copyright violation on their end.) And it says literally nothing about the subject other than that single name drop. CUPIDICAE💕 14:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so...have you researched Newspaper archives for that country, or do they have such a thing so we can see what recognition she was given over the years? Is what you're saying basically that, despite her being a major contributor to popular songs as a female back-up vocalist for a popular male singer, who is notable enough to have his own article, that she isn't notable enough for a WP article because she is not as "famous" as the "star singer"?? Is that what you're saying? I don't understand why you want this BLP deleted because we do have readers who are interested in seeing the "team" that made some of these song popular - be it in their country or globally. Certainly you realize that back in the day, women simply didn't get recognition, and that as WP editors, we apply common sense to our PAGs (and sometimes IAR) to determine if a BLP, such as this one, is verifiably DUE. She played an integral role in the "star's" popular songs, which certainly warrants an article, considering what all is involved. I couldn't help but compare it to athletes who simply showed up for a major league game - all they have to do is qualify - or maybe play in one or two games - and that warrants a separate article. If you're telling me that there is absolutely, positively no chance we will find sources that we can cite that will satisfy WP:V and/or corroborate that she was actually a recorded artist (back-up vocalist) on any of the songs that were considered the singer's hits, then I will agree with you, and will change my position. At this point in time, I don't agree that is the case - but I'm certainly open-minded to it if you can provide a convincing argument. Atsme 💬 📧 18:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Notification was made about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. Atsme 💬 📧 18:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I researched it otherwise I wouldn't have nominated it and come to the conclusion she isn't notable. BLP is a policy and isn't trumped by the fact that Wikipedia by and large is male dominated. We need articles on notable women, not any woman just because she exists. CUPIDICAE💕 14:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft: If they do not meet notability criteria they are likely to get media coverage this year given they have an album coming out which may make them notable enough. John Cummings (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why AFD is suddenly being inundated with dratification !votes. BLPs should not be draftified if they are not notable in hopes of future notability. CUPIDICAE💕 15:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Shah (cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is of no relevance; he has played a first class match and therefore passes WP:CRIN. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers or similar has played 1 FC match, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Rugbyfan22. Only sourced to a statistical database and comprehensively fails WP:GNG, which trumps any sports-related notability guideline. SportingFlyer T·C 23:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is the standard for everything. The cricket notability guidelines are absurd, "first class" matches are too common, and playing in 1 should no more make a person notable than having a significant role in just one notable film makes someone notable. Note that being on the field for a team for part of a game does not mean the player actually did anything significant, so even that comparison is flawed, but if actors and actresses need multiple apperances we should demand the same of sportspeople. Especially since the top sports people have played in way more games than top actors and actresses have been in notable productions. So the one game threshold is just plain absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, the single first-class appearance doesn't seem to be covered by any substantial source. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AS Irani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC match, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rugbyfan22 - fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 01:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, the single first-class appearance doesn't seem to be covered by any substantial source. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Ahlawat[edit]

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

The subject is a non notable actor who doesn't meet the notability guidelines of WP:NACTOR as he has only played minor roles in a few films. The references are all paid and routine announcement.

Ref #1 The clarity on the Forbes article is crystal as "brand connect" articles are paid for press and even has a disclaimer at the bottom stating Disclaimer: The views, suggestions and opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the experts. No Forbes India journalist was involved in the writing and production of this article.
Ref #2 Brand content (paid article) with disclaimer at the bottom
Ref #3 Routine announcement
Ref #4 Rehashed press release mentioning the subject briefly

So none of these are reliable and independent of the subject. BEFORE shows mentions in passing. Fails WP:GNG as well. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:49, 25 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. While there seems to be some dispute over what the page should be titled and what it should include, there seems a consensus here that there is enough source material for us to have an article about this subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan–Northwestern football rivalry[edit]

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

Article creator's stated rationale is the recent creation of a game trophy.[37] WP:Recentism aside, per WP:Notability and WP:SIGCOV, there are not multiple, independent WP:RS citations which support a claim that there is football rivalry (game) between these two teams. While games in the football series date to 1892, we do not manifest these as rivalry articles for every long-played and routine series between conference opponents. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the announcement from the two universities and the Big Ten Conference of a rivalry game should supersede any other criteria for a rivalry game. I would also point out the fact that there is an Illinois-Michigan football series page, which is not a rivalry article, rather a routine series. If that page is allowed to stay on Wikipedia, so should the page of an announced rivalry game, as should my edits on the pages of the schools in question. SilverPlacebo15 (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this rivalry game news has been shared across multiple independent sources unaffiliated with either university, including ESPN^[1], 247 Sports^[2], and the Chicago Tribune^[3].SilverPlacebo15 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rittenberg, Adam (February 25, 2021). "Michigan Wolverines, Northwestern Wildcats football to play for George Jewett Trophy". espn.com. ESPN. Retrieved February 25, 2021.
^ Kosko, Nick (February 25, 2021). "Michigan announces new rivalry trophy with Northwestern". 247sports.com. CBS Interactive. Retrieved February 25, 2021.
^ Ryan, Shannon (February 25, 2021). "Northwestern and Michigan create a rivalry trophy to honor George Jewett, the Big Ten's 1st Black football player". chicagotribune.com. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 25, 2021.

To argue your WP:Recentism point, I would like to point out the existence of numerous other rivalries in the Big Ten that have pages but very little history as well. For example, the Minnesota-Penn State football rivalry, Nebraska-Wisconsin football rivalry, and the Michigan State-Penn State football rivalry all have less history than the Michigan-Northwestern series. Even though each of these series has a trophy that has been established for longer, they have less history than two founding members of the Big Ten, who just decided to institute a rivalry trophy this year. You could say that the series is lopsided in Michigan's favor, but many rivalries are as well. Notable lopsided rivalries include the Little Brown Jug, Bedlam Series, Illibuck Trophy, and the Michigan-Michigan State football rivalry. SilverPlacebo15 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That other things that have articles are maybe also not rivalries doesn't mean this is one, SilverPlacebo15. What I sense here is a desire to have just about every game be an instance of a rivalry, something that is no doubt happily played up by sources such as ESPN because it generates clicks and views. Oh! It's a rivalry! Which is why RECENTISM applies--because we need to look at the long term. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree with that premise... you don't just see Michigan go and make a rivalry trophy with Rutgers/Maryland/Penn State just because they joined the Big Ten, or even with Indiana or Illinois with which they surely have significant history. That a program as historically significant to the history of college football as Michigan declared Northwestern to be a rival is relevant IMO. There are many historically relevant games in the series history as well. Also, if there are articles that are not rivalries, why are they not flagged for deletion, but this one is? That doesn't make sense to me. Surely Michigan/Northwestern is more of a significant rivalry than the Civil Conflict, which was literally a joke amongst the sports world. SilverPlacebo15 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I truly believe that the fact that both schools^[1]^[2](not just one) and the Big Ten Conference (see commissioner Kevin Warren's statement in either article) recognize the series as a rivalry should allow it to remain on Wikipedia. Notice in the statements how both schools refer to the game as a "rivalry", and not just a "series". It's not like one school or a media organization made up the rivalry to be relevant. The rivalry was created to honor a pioneer in George Jewett who played for both storied programs and have had many historically significant games over the past 129 years. SilverPlacebo15 (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Northwestern, Michigan Establish George Jewett Trophy". nusports.com. CBS Interactive. February 25, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2021.
^ Ablauf, Dave; Shepard, Chad (February 25, 2021). "Michigan and Northwestern Establish George Jewett Trophy". mgoblue.com. CBS Interactive. Retrieved February 25, 2021.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: or at the very least, draftify. Honestly, I am convinced by the page creator's arguments and am not a fan that this article was AfD'd a mere two hours after its creation while it was still a stub. RECENT is not a policy-based criterion for deletion, and in fact, I believe it works against deletion in this context: [B]y documenting timely material with reliable sources at the outset, more permanent sources will hopefully be found and used later. I thought of proposing a redirect to a page for the trophy, but am noticing that trophies tend to redirect to what else? The main rivalry page. The sourcing on the trophy is quality, and it seems not unreasonable (blah blah CRYSTAL) that better sources will follow. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The series is just too lopsided for there to be anything more than a feeble token shadow of a wisp of a rivalry. As the nom has noted, the only news of this so-called rivalry is the unveiling of a trophy commemorating it. The fact that other Big Ten rivalry articles exist may just indicate that some of them should go too. In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument to make. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Too lopsided? Looked at the Maryland - Penn State rivalry lately? B/w, precedential value isn't always inappropriate. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As per my original arguments, there are many other lopsided rivalry series as well, even more lopsided than the Michigan-Northwestern series. I believe that the fact that both schools and the Big Ten (check my references) refer to the game as a rivalry suggests that there is more than a mere series between conference opponents. I would also like to keep building this page as I learn more about the history between the two schools. Who knows, with the trajectory of the programs, the series may well tighten (I say this as a Michigan student and fan). (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the recent coverage of the Jewett Trophy, there is actually a lot of interesting history here. From the 1910s through the 1930s, Northwestern dominated this series, including a 1925 game that cost Michigan the national championship. The series also had a fiercely competitive period during Ara Parseghian's tenure as head coach (1956–1963). If this is kept, I'd be happy to help improve it and build it out. Cbl62 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed Cbl62, there are many games that can be reference to make a point that there is much more than a mere series between conference opponents. For example, Northwestern won the first game between the two programs in 1892 against a Michigan program that was the premier football program at the time. Another game could be in 1995, where an upset of #7 Michigan sprung the Wildcats on a path to their first Big Ten title since 1936. In addition, it was Northwestern's first win against Michigan in 30 years (since 1965). Similar upsets occurred in 1996 and 2000 as upsets of Michigan were key in Northwestern's only three Big Ten titles in the AP Poll era. (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is a football rivalry, coverage specific to that topic sufficient to pass the WP:GNG guideline needs to be located per WP:SIGCOV (A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). In this case, such independent coverage and citations about the topic might include coverage of memorable games played in the rivalry, callouts of memorable events or plays in the rivalry, players and coaches discussing the rivalry, quotes about the rivalry, reporting of W-L records of coaches within the rivalry, and similar content which is directly framed as a football rivalry.

Conversely, some good-faith WP:Other stuff exists arguments and edits are conflating routine content surrounding games and scores, the actions of individual players, and similar with the immediate need to clearly demonstrate the notability of the article's topic. This can have the appearance of WP:Synthesis and create Wikipedia:Coatrack articles, due to not establishing the notability of their topic. Today's news cycle driven by the press releases of the two universities about their new trophy may or may not mean that new trophy already passes GNG. We have Category:College football rivalry trophies in the United States and a naming convention for those (non-rivalry) articles which fail to establish notability as a rivalry. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@UW Dawgs: Are you suggesting that we move the article to "George Jewett trophy" (as part of Category:College football rivalry trophies in the United States) or that we "Delete" altogether? Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I observe there is zero sourcing of a "football rivalry" and conflation of yesterday's coverage which extensively uses "rivalry game trophy."[38] Articles need SIGCOV about the topic which they purport. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The gist of my question is whether you would be comfortable with a result whereby the article is moved/renamed as "George Jewett trophy". Would that be appropriate in your view? Cbl62 (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the other responses before I voted, but my gut says the trophy will probably qualify for an article at some point if it doesn't already (and if it doesn't I'd be fine with keeping it), but I'd want a lot of the overview to be cut down and be specific to the trophy. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is more than enough to surpass WP:GNG. Everything else is just "song and dance" -- but I don't dance.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the secondary coverage calls this a "rivalry," and we don't keep articles about two teams which just play each other a bunch of times, even if all their games receive secondary coverage. The trophy probably deserves its own article, it may be WP:TOOSOON for that coverage-wise but that might be an IAR keep, but this is clearly not a "rivalry." SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Tyagi[edit]

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

Does not have multiple major roles, fails WP:NACTOR. Article was redirect to single major role, but keeps being pushed into full article, so AFD is the only option. Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - has the involved editor made their COI clear at any point? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Ravensfire, There is not only single major role. This article is a stub. So, make other people unravel it. Thank You --Vansh tyagi24 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vansh tyagi24, Work on it in draft space or ask the article to be userfied. Bluntly, the only significant role I can see is Crime Patrol. Film work - all minor parts. Other television shows listed, none of them are starring/major roles. WP:NACTOR isn't met. Ravensfire (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ravensfire, I will working on it and other actors from the same show with not so much significant role even in this show have small wikipedia pages under stub templete. So, Please remove your deletion templete from the Article. --Vansh tyagi24 (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom fails WP:NACTOR. Seems like the creator has a very close relation with the subject, case of COI. Previously i moved Sanjeev tyaagi into draft due to poorly sourced references. DMySon 19:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I not know this person personally while I am always finds the undeveloped article. Previously work with Mandar Chandwadkar. You can see my contributions. If you see the history of edits of Mandar Chandwadkar then you may also say I know him or mad fan like anything. Please remove all the templetes except stubI and Infobox. --Vansh tyagi24 (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this person meets neither WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG so there is no guideline-based reason for keeping this article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to WP:NACTOR, In this article many notable shows with Significant roles is present. So, WP:NACTOR is valid for the Article. In Crime Patrol, Courtroom, Karam Dhram Apna Apna etc he played significant roles. --Vansh tyagi24 (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment The reason of this disscusion deletion Article is wrong. Ravensfire said only one role is pushed throughout the Article while In article, his major shows, major movies, Theatre plays, Web films are also Written.--Vansh tyagi24 (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- :Vansh tyagi24, please only use the keep/delete once so it doesn't look like you are voting twice. For additional comments, use '''Comment''' Ravensfire (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I improving the page day by day Ravensfire, Please watch article and remove this template Vansh tyagi24 (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I improved thid article so much. Most of the line have inline citations. I not written only about crime patrol in the Article while written about major shows, movies, Theatre play, Webseries/ webfilms. So, Redirection to single show is a insult of actor.THANK YOU Vansh tyagi24 (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only one significant acting credit + already draftified once and deleted + clear bias on the part of the creator. Fails WP:GNG.Sunshine1191 (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Within[edit]

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

I created this page when I was 15 over a decade ago. It is about a high school band with little significance. Nexus000 (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any sources, although the band name is decent as far as high school band names go. I myself was in Pariah. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a notable band. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry N. Jones[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being mayor of a small town is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 — the notability test requires some actual substance about his work in the role to establish his significance, not just minimal verification that he existed, and it requires a lot more sourcing than just a tiny smattering of local media coverage which verifies his election, reelection, resignation and death but fails to support any actual substance about his work in the role. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors of places with around 20,000 people are not default notable, and the sourcing is not enough to suggest Jones is notable otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage, fails WP:NPOL. --Ashley yoursmile! 19:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hamilton (voice actress)[edit]

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

Is she notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article about an American actress which is tagged for notability since 2019. Shimarin placed the tag on the article. He is also active at the Hungarian wiki, just like me. But anyways, she seems cute and all, but I don't think that she is notable. The presented sources are either about the game or an interview with the founder. Sarah gets mentioned marginally in all of them, but I think that's not enough. During a Google search I only found the following: fandom wiki, databases, fansites, quotations, and a (repetitive) article about her collecting money to pay her medical bills. I am not satisfied. So yeah, I think Ms. Sarah is not notable, but as always, I am happy to be proven wrong. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added sources that support notability per WP:NACTOR, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable [...] productions" (video games). The coverage of her fundraising also seems to support "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." The sources include coverage not just about the games but also a focus on Hamilton, her biographical information, her career generally, and her specific notable roles. Beccaynr (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://www.polygon.com/features/2013/4/25/4261002/the-longest-journey-of-ragnar-tornquist Search for her last name in that article, and she is given enough coverage to qualify as significant coverage. She was notable enough to get an entire article written about her medical situation https://www.engadget.com/2014-05-04-longest-journey-voice-actor-seeking-help-for-medical-bills.html They talk about her and have interview quotes with her at https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/speaking-out-on-voice-direction She passes the general notability guidelines. She is also a notable voice actress by the standards of that subject specific guideline, having played the main character in notable games. Dream Focus 17:47, 25 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 List of Cambridgeshire County Cricket Club List A players. Daniel (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Malkin (cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not notable in the context of a global encyclopaedia of broad interest; even a specialist cricket wiki (where such articles belong) surely couldn't find much to say about him. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the criteria for WP:CRIN, as has played a List A game (and moreover in a well recognised tournament). DevaCat1 (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to List of Cambridgeshire County Cricket Club List A players. Fails NCRIC and GNG. Minor counties cricket is not the "highest domestic level" and notability is not inherited from the opponents, competition being played or status of any given match. Far more likely to be notable for playing in nearly 60 Minor Counties Championship matches, than one knockout match against Middlesex where he contributed very little. Verifiable for inclusion in a list, but wholly lacking in significant coverage, so ultimately does not warrant a standalone article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cambridgeshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, standalone article clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:54, 27 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 List of Maharashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Yakub[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As with so many other articles incorrectly listed for deletion, passes WP:CRIN by virtue of having played First class cricket. He's listed on CricInfo, in addition to the footnoted reference. DevaCat1 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC match, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, which overrides any possible WP:CRIN. No problem with the redirect if an article can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 18:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arriva Southern Counties. Content can be merged if so desired at editorial discretion from behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Enterprise Coaches[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:NCORP. Endorsing redirect to Arriva Southern Counties. A merge is unnecessary as there is only one sourced sentence in the whole article, which cites Arriva's website and 2 Facebook posts.

This was previously deleted at AfD in December 2006 but the article was recreated a month later by a CoI user. SK2242 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - A few lines can be added at Arriva Southern Counties#Services (or Former services) - There's 2 NEC mentions but some history included would be better than nothing at all. –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 25 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) 08:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Things Zoofari[edit]

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

Procedural nomination following an IP editor's impassioned request at the Wikipedia Help Desk. I am neutral unless and until I express an opinion in the discussion below. That IP editor has also blanked some or all of this article often today.

Their rationale is stated thus: "Hello Wikipedia. I am requesting for the speedy and immediate deletion of this page as it contains fake information which can lead to fraud and also there are many scenarios of article infringement. Kindly review and delete this page as it is urgent."

I have run Earwig's copyvio detector and it finds a low probability of copyright infringement. The article has some issues, but those are normal Fiddle Faddle 13:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see evidence of notability. The sources (where they are accessible and mention the subject) are in local newspapers and probably based on press releases. The first and longest paragraph is not about the subject. The language is promotional. The subject is a travelling petting zoo - hardly likely to be notable. (The IP's "urgent request" is irrelevant.) Maproom (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maproom, Their request only has relevance insofar as it created the discussion. I am not at all concerned about their urgency, nor their passion, I copied and pasted their text verbatim. Consensus will prevail. Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above rationale.Nightwolf1223 (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that sloth is so adorable. Also, partial point towards WP:GNG. Not enough, but it's something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails the "significant coverage" section of WP:CORP. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 23:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I found bunch of other articles in Google News that mentions them, there is nothing in-depth. Expertwikiguy (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage besides visits to libraries with a small petting zoo. This company operates petting zoos in several Texas cities, but none have gotten any significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Besides that I do not see any RS's that are not promotional available. Probably not suitable for Wikipedia. LOMRJYO_(About)^(contribs) 00:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Currently no obvious redirection target, if/when that article is created (in line with other counties) would recommend an editorial decision to redirect should be taken. Daniel (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Jelfs[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once again, longevity at a low level does not make him notable. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with so many other articles incorrectly listed for deletion, passes WP:CRIN by virtue of having played List A cricket. Once again, longevity at a low level is irrelevant to whether he passes WP:CRIN- but playing a List A match is. DevaCat1 (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lincolnshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where players with 1 or a few matches but no coverage, are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no coverage of him, which fails WP:GNG and is strange considering the article claims that he made his List-A debut in his early 40s. SportingFlyer T·C 01:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article completely and totally fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV; only wide-ranging databases, scorecards, etc. In fact fails all notability criteria including the very weak NCRIC; there is no automatic list-A—highest-level equivalence, and minor counties is very much below that standard irrespective of the opponents and competition status. No suitable list to merge/redirect into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, the single List-A appearance doesn't seem to be covered by any substantial source. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Currently no obvious redirection target, if/when that article is created (in line with other counties) would recommend an editorial decision to redirect should be taken. Daniel (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Wicks[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. However long his career at a lower level, he is simply not notable for Wikipedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with so many other articles incorrectly listed for deletion, passes WP:CRIN by virtue of having played List A cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lincolnshire County Cricket Club List A players has played 1 List-A match, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY were players with 1 or a few matches but no coverage, are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the basic inclusion standard is GNG, which is not met here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV; only wide-ranging databases, scorecards, etc. In fact fails all notability criteria including the very weak NCRIC; there is no automatic list-A—highest-level equivalence, and minor counties is very much below that standard irrespective of the opponents and competition status. No suitable list to merge/redirect into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, the single List-A appearance doesn't seem to be covered by any substantial source just database. --Ashley yoursmile! 17:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No problem with the redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 18:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we need more than just a bunch of scorecards to show biographical notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Currently no obvious redirection target, if/when that article is created (in line with other counties) would recommend an editorial decision to redirect should be taken. Daniel (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Airey (cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How many articles like this do we have? RobinCarmody (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with so many other articles incorrectly listed for deletion, passes WP:CRIN by virtue of having played List A cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lincolnshire County Cricket Club List A cricketers Has played 1 List-A game, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where players with 1 or a few games but no coverage, are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, the single List-A appearance doesn't seem to be covered by any substantial source. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no redirect target available and one appearance is nowhere near enough when GNG is so comprehensively failed Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Currently no obvious redirection target, if/when that article is created (in line with other counties) would recommend an editorial decision to redirect should be taken. Daniel (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Parkin-Coates[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as multiple other articles like this. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep and improve The article passes WP:CRIN as he has played a List A match. Added to which he played England Under 15s, which is highly likely to have some coverage somewhere but just hasn't been dug up yet. Needs more references, though. DevaCat1 (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lincolnshire County Cricket Club List A players has played 1 List-A match, but while there is some coverage of him playing for Chesterfield CC, it's just match reports and not enough to pass WP:GNG. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where players with 1 or a few appearances but no/limited coverage, are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect provided the Cricket Archive shows the List A match. No coverage, cannot retain a standalone article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A total piece of junk article that comes no where meeting GNG which is the minimum inclusion for all articles in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, the single List-A appearance doesn't seem to be covered by any substantial source. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Currently no obvious redirection target, if/when that article is created (in line with other counties) would recommend an editorial decision to redirect should be taken. Daniel (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kelk[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another article of exceedingly specialised interest. Not notable in the Wikipedia context. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep Played a List A match so passes WP:CRIN; and has multiple references in footnotes, contrary to Sturm's boilerplate assertion above. Looks like this one could be improved to pass GNG (even if that were relevant, which it isn't). DevaCat1 (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lincolnshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A fixture, but I could find no coverage that passes WP:GNG. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where players with 1 or a few games but have no coverage, are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only played one match, only sourced to directory listings, fails WP:GNG. No real problem with a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 01:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to List of Buckinghamshire County Cricket Club List A players. Daniel (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Lynch (English cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Moderately interesting that he seems to have played in minor counties until he was 50, but still not notable. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:CRIN by virtue of having played a List A match. Coverage is on CricInfo. GNG isn't a relevant consideration. DevaCat1 (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- DevaCat1, please be aware that we very recently had an RfC which changed this[39]. In the past, meeting the GNG or an SNG like NCRIC was sufficient; now, it is written down more clearly that the SNG only gives a presumption that the GNG is met, but that articles meeting an SNG may still be deleted or merged if sufficient coverage can't be found. Stating that "GNG isn't a relevant consideration" isn't correct. Fram (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless indepth coverage can be found. Fram (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Buckinghamshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A game, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where players with 1 or a few games but with no coverage, are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't support a redirect of an unsourced article without a reference. SportingFlyer T·C 23:55, 27 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 List of Middlesex County Cricket Club players. Daniel (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Pocknee[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another case where GNG failure is more important than technically passing the cricket notability guidelines. "J. Pocknee" brings up a number of references for this period on the BNA, but they are again WP:MILL. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A first class appearance for a full county side automatically passes WP:CRIN. Whether somebody else has the same name is simply of no relevance to their notability. And WP:GNG is simply of no relevance here, as that isn't the standard for first class players. DevaCat1 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Middlesex County Cricket Club players Has played 1 FC game, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used in WP:FOOTY where player has 1 or a few appearances but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rugbyfan22 if the appearance is confirmed, but he comprehensively fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:50, 27 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. Currently no obvious redirection target, if/when that article is created (in line with other counties) would recommend an editorial decision to redirect should be taken. Daniel (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Trower[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His List A appearance was against a Cricket Board side, not a full county side ... this is yet more cruft and he simply isn't notable. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lincolnshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:52, 26 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 and redirect to List of Cambridgeshire County Cricket Club List A players. Daniel (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Bailey (cricketer, born 1943)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another common name obviously wouldn't help, but two runs in one List A match is the very epitome of non-notability, with a hint of WP:BIAS as well. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cambridgeshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a very, very, very long list of articles on cricket players that completely fail GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, the single List-A appearance doesn't seem to be covered by any substantial source. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kellogg's Nutri-Grain Ironman Series[edit]

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

Setting aside confusing lead and terrible references, I am not seeing what makes this event pass WP:GNG/WP:NEVENT/WP:NSPORT? My BEFORE only shows press-release like works and passing mentions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons stated by nominator. —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant sporting event in Australia and New Zealand and is televised nationally. Certainly needs cleanup, but it is a notable event, with good sources available. - Bilby (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Bilby, Could you link the best sources for us here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not quite sure what you are looking for. I did a quick search on Google News for "Nutri-Grain Ironman" which gave over 3000 hits. This includes a large number of articles about competitors [40][41][42], but there's also articles about the impact of COVID on this year's sewries [43], broadcasting changes [44], and criticism [45]. Unfortunately, because of the Australian media scene, an awful lot is behind paywalls. :( - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bilby, Thanks. The main problem I see with most of then is WP:SIGCOV - the event is not the main focus of the article. The exception is [46] but a short report on broadcasting change is only a start here... let's keep digging. I assume coverage by Nine Entertainment Co. is considered significant in Australia? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be considered significant - only major sporting events can expect to be telecast on free-to-air. I'm not quite so quick to discount the intertveiews with competitors, but that said, we get a lot from Trove regarding the formation of the event and issues around the development of a rival series [47][48][49][50][51]. There's also decent coverage in Douglas Booth's "Australian Beach Cultures" (ISBN 9781136338403). I'm thinking that there is some good history that we can write about. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Bilby's comment is correct, this is a well-known event in Australia. I'm surprised there isn't more significant coverage, the materials found by Bilby suggest there is more. Deus et lex (talk) 08:49, 26 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) 13:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandesh Kulkarni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable filmmaker and actor. Hulatam (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Resources does not meet WP:RS. DMySon 19:29, 25 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) 13:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Prince Entertainmnet[edit]

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

Fails in passing WP:SIGCOV Hulatam (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not to mention the misspelling ("Entertainmnet"). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 22:02, 26 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 draftify to Draft:Playgendary. The draft should not be restored to the mainspace until the sourcing and tone of the article is improved. — The Earwig (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Playgendary[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, all citations are from tabloid or otherwise unreliable sources. In addition, while not a criterion for deletion, the page has been edited by paid editors Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1050#Playgendary and is completely written like an advertisement. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom. To say that "all citations are from tabloid or otherwise unreliable sources" is a bit off because at least Pocket Gamer and GamesIndustry.biz are recognised as reliable sources. However, what is available in reliable sources (some not cited in the article include: [52][53][54]) is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL at best. I wouldn't be surprised if the company was covered in domestic (Belarusian or Cypriot) media, but I so far failed to find anything close to significant coverage. IceWelder [✉] 12:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from delete to draftify per the below discussion. IceWelder [✉] 15:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I agree that the article is written like an ad, though that doesn't have much impact on whether the subject is notable. And yes, most of the coverage, even in reliable sources, isn't much more than run of the mill content. I have found this article from a Belorussian newspaper [55] which discusses the phenomenon of hyper-casual games in the country with reference to Playgendary. While they have a quote from the company's CEO, I think the article overall amounts to significant and independent coverage. Together with the first Pocket Gamer piece, we might have enough coverage to say WP:NCORP is met. Overall, I suspect that there will be more coverage in the Belorussian media since the company seems to be quite prominent in the country's gaming industry. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, I've also found this ([56]) from the same newspaper and this from a Belorussian website ([57]), though there is some overlap between these two. @IceWelder: might these three help the subject towards WP:NCORP? Modussiccandi (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modussiccandi, thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, these sources don't convince me. All three briefly discuss the contemporary popularity of some of the company's games; the latter two appear to be about the same App Annie ranking. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL likely still applies as well. From what I can see, we do not have enough information in reliable sources to write a decent (even if short) article about the company itself, rather than a bunch of its games. The raw number of reliable citations where the company is mentioned (currently 7) is ultimately irrelevant. Do you think it would be wise to aim for draft incubation first, potentially allowing the discovery of sources outside the AfD process? IceWelder [✉] 15:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IceWelder I would not at all be opposed to moving this to draft. The company seems significant enough to generate the coverage required, but even I agree that currently its notability is borderline at most. Perhaps it's simply too soon for them, which makes me think draftifying could be a good idea. We could both change or !votes to draftify if you want. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Modussiccandi: Sounds reasonable. I changed my !vote. IceWelder [✉] 15:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gobonobo ⁺ ^c 12:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to WP:PRESERVE. This article might be able to be re written with more independent sources to avoid it having a promotional nature. Archrogue (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as WP:ATD. Sources fail NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gösta Lundqvist (disambiguation)[edit]

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

I was going to WP:PROD this until I saw WP:Articles for deletion/Gösta Lundqvist, closed as wrong venue.

A DAB page with only two people on it, and they spelled their names differently: Gösta Lundquist and Gösta Lundqvist. Now that both those articles are at their basenemes and hatnoted to each other, this DAB page is unnecessary and fails WP:ONEOTHER. Narky Blert (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It Gösta go. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- <groan> Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no need for a disambiguation page here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poramut Krongborisut[edit]

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

I am aware that he technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to playing 16 minutes of professional football a few years back. Searching his name in Thai yields only very trivial coverage in squad listings and match reports. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that we can build a biography from. Given that the player is 35, so in the twilight of his career and unlikely to build on his 16 minutes, I believe that deletion should be considered as per long-standing consensus on these cases.

See also this AfD and this one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete footballers who play only a few minutes on the pitch fail WP:NFOOTBALL. -Cupper52^Discuss! 12:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG was failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:54, 25 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) 13:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teja Tanikella[edit]

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

An apparent autobiography on a one-time actor who fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The closest he gets to passing GNG is the fairly routine coverage of his wedding, already cited in the article. Nothing better found in a WP:BEFORE search. The one film that he starred in seems barely notable itself. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Autobiography of a NN actor mostly sourced to primary and non reliable sources. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For The article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teja_Tanikella) the links are provided, So please kindly keep this article. Thank you.

Please find the sources: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12] ^[13]

References

^ https://www.filmibeat.com/celebs/teja-tanikella.html
^ https://www.ragalahari.com/stars/profile/3487/teja-tanikella.aspx
^ https://in.bookmyshow.com/person/teja-tanikella/29673
^ http://movies.sulekha.com/teja-tanikella_movie-list
^ https://www.quicklookfilms.com/people/Teja-Tanikella
^ https://www.cinebee.in/teja-tanikella/profile/4808782731280384
^ https://chopnews.com/mr-lavangam-movie-cast-crew-and-story/
^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/hyderabad/teja-and-divyas-elegant-wedding-soire/articleshow/69663828.cms
^ https://www.indiaglitz.com/tanikellas-son-turns-hero-with-mrlavangam-telugu--news-65635
^ https://newsjizz.in/11752-the-elegant-wedding-party-of-teja-and-divya.html
^ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1579899/
^ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6925202/
^ https://www.ragalahari.com/localevents/186628/tanikella-bharani-son-maha-teja-bharanis-wedding-photos.aspx

TejaTanikella (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources even come close to showing significant coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of nobility. RationalPuff (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR and not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable performer. – Athaenara ✉ 14:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His movie can be found on IMDB. <ref>https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6925202/ Adiv97 (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Adiv97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SPA created just minutes before adding this vote. RationalPuff (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew C. Pritt[edit]

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

Failed political candidate, does not meet GNG or WP:NPOL. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am citing everything and writing it as unbiased as possible. To say I am a "failed" politcian ignores the thrust of this article is I am the first openly-gay individual to run for statewide office. That in itself is meritable. I also cite moments of not so positive outlook towards myself and cite those sources. I am providing plenty of verifiable and legitimate sources. This is supposed to be a cite for information. Okay, yes, I am writing it about me, but if I used verifiable sources and write truth, what's your problem with this? The lack of information I say is the problem. I'm not stuck on myself but I am trying to treat this like any other article in a balanced form. Acpritt (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While Eostrix states Failed Political Candidate does not meet GNG or WP:NPOL, I also ask you to note it states quite clearly ".... although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." In this case, it is noted and verified by national and state publications I am the FIRST LGBT Candidate to run for statewide office in Arkansas. Acpritt (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Per nom, also improperly undeclared WP:AUTO, not compliant with WP:COI. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in draftifying here, as the subject does not meet notability guidelines and is not a viable main space article.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is more coverage of the alleged theft here, and the subject has a number of aliases which could help to establish notability (see here). SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, SailingInABathTub you argue on one point it doesn't follow guidelines. However, you cite an older news article and also cite a personal blog that makes unsubstantiated allegations. Respectfully, I have held office. I also, believe I have met the guidelines stated. There are other non-elected politicians with their own pages on here, such as John Burkhalter. He served on an appointed commission such as myself. Are we giving more weight to him because he has money? Also, my references are valid news sources. You both have cited personal blogs. There's not as much reliability in those versus established national and state news organizations. Acpritt (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing with the nomination that the article does not currently meet the requirements for a mainspace article - but I believe that it has potential. Moving the article to a draft will allow you improve the article and follow the WP:AFC process. The alternative is likely to be that the article is deleted per WP:BLPDELETE. SailingInABathTub (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SailingInABathTub I am open to any and all critiques. Would you mind maybe taking it over and/or working with me to strengthen it so it may attain that point? I really want to work to make the information better and it might be better to have someone else do it. So yes, I am open to your suggestions. Acpritt (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Start by reading WP:YOURSELF and WP:BLP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, but do not delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not even win the primary in the most signifcant race he ran in, not anywhere close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an WP:NPOL fail that has not yet established WP:GNG outside of the campaign and also per WP:TNT given the the promotional CV-nature of the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I am disappointed in some who are saying DELETE. You say I haven't been established as a politician, yet I haven't finished adding material. But at least SailingInABathTub and Beyond My Ken are willing to offer options and willing to work. If either of you will work with me to strengthen this and add the offices I have been elected to, I would appreciate it. I would note, there are politicians who are not elected to office who are listed on Wikipedia. John Burkhalter is a perfect example. He ran for Lt. Governor in 2010 but never won an election. There's others, so if you say it hasn't met the criteria, with all due respect, you need to re-read as I have what is required. Acpritt (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the article, really, the problem is that at this point in your life, you simply don't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. You're close, in my opinion, but you're not there. That's why I !voted that the article should be sent to draftspace instead of being deleted. I think that you have the probability of being Wiki-notable at some point, and the article should be kept around and updated until that point is reached.

Also, may I say that it's not considered to be good form for the author of an article -- who in this case is also the subject of the article -- to answer every comment by other editors at AfD. We call it WP:BLUDGEONing. I don't think you're there yet, but you will be if you continue to respond as you are now. This is a community process, you should let the discussion run to a decision -- it's highly unlikely that anything you say at this point is going to change the course of events.

My advice to you is copy the article and keep it off-Wiki, in case it doesn't get draftified, and bring it back once the situation has substantially changed, that is, when you have more experience under your belt, and more media coverage. Good luck! Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please read WP:Other stuff exists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete autobio which fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and has some potential WP:BLP concerns to boot (even though it's an autobio.) SportingFlyer T·C 19:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since he's been mentioned multiple times, John Burkhalter's article is also up for deletion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL is clearly not met, I don't see sourcing that suggests GNG is met either. This is also an autobiography and there are promotional and sourcing issues as a result. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akram Hosen Mandal[edit]

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

Non notable local politician who fails our notability guidelines. Article is poorly sourced and written from a fans point of view. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Per nom, also possible undeclared WP:COI. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not an obituary portal. RationalPuff (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-This article captures the life, and political contribution of recently passed Mr Akram Hosen Mandal, a political leader and a former union parishad chairman from Bangladesh’s Haluaghat who was elected repeatedly three times for his honesty, integrity and commitment for the people and the land. I strongly believe the world, especially the young generations of Bangladesh and the South Asia deserve knowledge and information about Mr Akram Hosen Mandal. Mr Akram Hosen Mandal’s contribution to organise refugee camps during Bangladesh’s liberation war, his strong active role in leading successful general strikes during military rule and many other aspects of his life should be part of public knowledge and the history. IT would possibly be an injustice if this article is deleted from the Wikipedia. As it is my first article draft for Wikipedia, I understand unintentional mistakes can happen during the article drafting or editing. I am happy to hear about, and address the mistakes, insufficiencies and inadequacies of this article. If you kindly inform me the problems or insufficiencies it will be a generosity and I will then try to address the identified issues as much as possible. I will eagerly wait to hear from you. Thank you all for your support, cooperation and generosity to allow me with opportunities to improve the quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadimul Mandal (talk • contribs) 13:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what evidence you have for any of the above? Just proving he was in the position of responsibility or taken part in something is not enough. The subject contribution need to be significant and it need to be supported by wide coverage. Your newness is not the problem. I will be glad to save an article from deletion by adding information, if sources exists and/or there are indication that the subject is notable. RationalPuff (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the phrase ‘non-notable local politician’ by a Wikipedia reviewer was a highly problematic comment. It devalued and marginalised the people with significance from rural, remote, non-urban areas and subaltern communities. The comment provided was very elitist in nature.

The article that I have been drafting is still in a very raw or work-in-progress stage and it is within my plan to gradually work towards it's completion with sufficient citation and referencing, with objective language and tone use and many other stages of academic and professional writing exercise. Identifying and levelling an article for deletion at an early stage of writing is not a good practice, I must say. You need to give time to people to build their content, to build their article first.

I initiated this write up neither from a fan's points of view, not I am writing an obituary. My subject has spent a life with significance and his legacies, his historical roles ( history is not only about kings, queens and urban intellectuals, politicians and celebrities history is also about people like my subject- making or changing processes and the nature of politics in the grassroots, in the machines, in the peripheries) to be documented for world’s future generations. You may argue that my subject person Mr Akram Hosen Mandal’s name or contribution not already available in a lot of media. In relation to this I must say you need to consider the context, the time, the area where and when Mr Akram Hosen Mandal made his significant political contributions- he worked in a prior to the Internet time, in a remote and rural area. You cannot expect available of a wide range of published materials in relation to a people like him. There are hundreds and thousands of people with significant contributions to public life and humanity in this world who are still not captured in the lenses of visual media or academic or media write-ups. That doesn't mean we don't have an evidence base or references to support the creation or completion of Wikipedia entries on these persons. We need to move beyond the conventional and narrow definition of evidence. To understand and document you just cannot rely merely on previously published write-ups. If you only look for previously available published work on a person or subject how public knowledge will be created and further expanded?

The point that I wish to make is straightforward: we need to provide sufficient time, direction, support and cooperation to me or other Wikipedia contributors before sudden levelling or stereotyping a work-in-progress or draft article for deletion. The article that I have been building will ultimately be a well researched, well-cited and objective Wikipedia entry. We need time for that. There should not be any unnecessary rush.

Thanks for your cooperation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadimul Mandal (talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will you disclose any relationship you have with the subject per our policy. I am noting the fact that you share the same surname. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate list of people. As such we have guidelines and rules on who qualify for an article. His position does not give him a pass on notability guidelines so we have to see if there is adequate coverage in reliable sources, there isn't. Wikipedia job is not to represented underappreciated people; if you want to highlight his success than might I recommend writing a blog or a news article? Is the topic notable? The answer is not; it does not have the required sources. Just because someone is not notable per Wikipedia guidelines does not diminish them or their legacy. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people).Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, the article is at the draft or work-in-progress stage at this point.

Systematic research and writing processes will be undertaken and applied involving all the stakeholders and information sources to progressively improve the quality, content, accuracy, objectivity and referencing.

I am keen to contribute to the Wikipedia community. As an anthropologist and social scientist I will be very interest to make solid intellectual and professional contribution to the Wikipedia community.

I commenced writing this particular article as an anthropologist and social scientist. How local politics, local figures and local experiences contribute to shaping the global agenda is an exciting area to discuss and debate. Conventional understanding about ‘notable person’ is very problematic.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadimul Mandal (talk • contribs) 05:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic has not been shown to be notable (to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria). Unless that circumstance changes within the next few days, the article will not be kept.

In principle, non-notable subjects could always be draftified/userfied in the hope that some day research will unearth adequate sources, or that more will be written about the subject, or that Wikipedia will radically loosen its inclusion criteria. But a union parishad chairman who did not go on to higher office has never been the subject of a stand alone Wikipedia biography, and long experience has taught that the odds of that changing are vanishingly small. It would be more unkind to give the author the false hope that this topic might ever be accepted than it would be to delete it. The author would be better advised to consider alternative outlets for what they want to write about Mandal.

If there were an article about Haluaghat Union, Mandal's name could be included in a list of chairpersons, and this title redirected there. The only other redirect target I can see would be his brother, Kudratullah Mandal. I don't think that's a good target, but others may disagree. There is no non-duplicative content worth merging anywhere. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks all for sharing your perspectives and thoughts.

This article was written with the intention to capture the life and contributions of Mr Akram Hosen Mandal as a politician. His role as a union parishad chairman for three terms (you will see the union parishad website referred only two terms, in reality he served for three terms- this reflects limitations of conventional referencing based on electronically available references only) is only one aspect of his rewarding career. I was keen primarily to capture his solid political contributions in a wide range of areas that includes contributions during the Bangladesh’s war of independence in 1971, his contributions in mobilizing the protest in the border land areas after the killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and family in post 1975 political unrest, mr Akram Hosen Mandal’s solid contributions to oppose and challenge to the military regime of general Ershad through successful leading of hartals, strikes, protests and mass mobilisations in one of which he luckily escaped the sword by jumping into a waste water full pond while his sons and his pro democracy supporters were brutally tortured and arrested. The news was the main headline item of that day in the BBC Bangla. He donated his personal land for establishing a college which is now the largest college in Haluaghat and would possibly get a separate Wikipedia entry in the future. The greatest of all role Akram Mandal served in his life is the promotion, leading and maintenance of community harmony and peaceful inter-ethnic, inter-cultural, inter-faith relationships in a challenging context of rural, remote, regional borderland areas where hindu, muslims, christians and garo indigenous peoples live, and challenging time when Bengali settlers were dumped by military rule and also during the post babri mosque destruction. He was the person who constantly connected and acted as a bridge, as a glue between people of different communities, cultures and religions.

Narrowing a politician with a wide range of political and social contributions merely into a ‘union parishad chairman’ and then labeling or stereotyping as a ‘non-notable subject’ and then making sudden decision for deletion of a article which is in its initial drafting stage is a very immature, rigid, closed and problematic approach that doesn’t support ongoing progression and evolvement of public knowledge for our future generations. A union parishad chairman can’t be a notable subject or a union parishad chairman has limited opportunities to be a notable person are problematic assumptions with very elitist worldview and supports dominant representation of union parishad chairman’s in the conventional dominant media or discourse. The approach of directly linking an union parishad chairman with ‘non-notable’ subject is neither dynamic nor historical. This approach does not see the ways the importance of different professions, including union parishad chairman, changes over time and throughout the history.

Thank you for your ongoing considerations to support future improvement of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadimul Mandal (talk • contribs) 09:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Docks Art Fair[edit]

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

No evidence to be found that this former? (website down, Instagram last updated in 2017) art biennial was notable. The sources in the French article are mostly event listings and I cannot find anything on google to establish notability. Article was created by Fair founder and content could be improved, but I can't find ANY sourcing. StarM 03:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This event does not meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA; there is no depth of coverage, no lasting effect and while there is a diversity of galleries given in the article, there is no indication of notability of this event. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Looking at the French article gave me access to a few more sources, and I was able to find a couple others on my own. Some of it is just the basic type of article where they say an event is happening, but some provide analysis of both the art market and the fair's effect on it, as well as discussion of the art in the fair itself. It's not a ton of coverage, but I also have a limited ability to search for sources in French. I'm not terribly bothered if it's deleted, but I think there's some notability there. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I read all the new sources found by ScottishFinnishRadish. They tell me very little beyond the fact that it exists. This org might technically meet our criteria, but there is just not enough coverage to say much of anything. Possibly (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QuantInsti[edit]

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

Unable to locate significant coverage in independent, reliable and secondary sources. The article is written like a marketing brochure. M4DU7 (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article sourced to a press release, a brief quotation by someone associated with the company, a routine announcement, and user reviews, none of which meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find more press release coverage and this interview but not the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. She has featured in only one television show, so it's kind of WP:TOOSOON. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:34, 25 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basit Ahmed Bhat[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No senior fully-pro appearances. Recreated after previous PROD. BlameRuiner (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - Soccerway says he has played four times in the I-League to date, which is listed at WP:FPL, thus the claim that he fails NFOOTY and has made no senior fully-pro appearances seems to be untrue...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignore that - I misinterpreted Soccerway's slightly confusing (IMO) interface. I now realise that he has actually been an unused substitute four times -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per nom,doesn't meet WP:GNG and NFTBL. Not a notable footballer from kashmir(haven't heard of him, although this is my personal POV shouldn't be considered)--Jammumylove (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - might even check this footballer Mohammad Asrar Rehbar if he meets WP:NFOOTBALL/ GNG.-- Jammumylove (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace: This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. 11 more games remaining in the season and there is a high chance that this player may make certain appearances in the first team this season itself. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL currently but it's possible that he will debut in the near future Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of articles that does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fawaz Zayani[edit]

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

Non notable actor who has mostly played supporting and recurring roles and fails WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sruthy Jayan[edit]

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

Non notable actress with a few small roles. Fails WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is met with the presence of multiple references in publications accepted in WP:ICTFFAQ. Applicant has done roles of note in multiple films with this https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/news/sruthi-jayan-to-essay-a-key-in-biju-menon-starrer-sathyam-paranja-vishwasikkuvo/articleshow/70074465.cms reference explicitly indicating that her role is a key one, meriting a character poster. Was also noted in Janamaithri where she was probably the female character with the highest screen time. No obvious WP:COI seen in the editor's contributions and therefore this merits a keep. Jupitus Smart 06:17, 27 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) 08:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Ohanian[edit]

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

I'm really struggling to find sources on this french horn player. A whole lot of articles that mention that he played in performances, but of course there is because that's what musicians do. The only possible claim to notability I can see is his membership in the Canadian Brass and the Empire Brass. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable player of the french horn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Fernández[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG as he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Many people have swum the Straits of Gibraltar, being the first person from a particular ethnic group, state or territory to do so does not establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is a notable swimmer. Fernández departed from Cadiz, Spain, and swam the Strait for three hours and 57 minutes covering a distance of 18 kilometers in 65° Fahrenheit waters. He reached Point Cires, Morocco, accomplishing his lifelong dream and becoming the first Puerto Rican ever to do so. Only a handful of swimmers have been able to cross the Strait of Gibraltar. I wonder why the nominator is nominating so many Puerto Rican related articles for deletion. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're so poorly sourced and so are non-notable. Why are you just copying text from the page into here? Many people have swum the Strait, being the first Puerto Rican to do so isn't notable.Mztourist (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - four news articles in mayor PR newspapers about Fernández and were not just trivial mentions but the news articles were about him and his accomplishments. I believe meets notability per WP:ANYBIO. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the improvements to the article since it was nominated. Scorpions13256 (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ilia Mihaylov[edit]

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

Despite the valiant refbombing effort, there's actually very little to even suggest, let alone prove, notability. The refs are all concert listings and similar; the few RS ones are passing mentions — I've not found one that amounts to significant coverage by any definition. The alleged recordings aren't with major labels, most of the sources cited don't mention this person, and the BBC R3 one is actually a radio programme. Therefore fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO / WP:MUSIC. (Note: the article was created by a [declared] paid editor on behalf of the subject, which probably explains this.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both JSTOR and Google Scholar turn up nothing, a Google books search turns up two listings, one in French. He seems notable, but unsure if he's wiki-worthy. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SOAP
Delete a non-notable musical conductor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Institute of Technology[edit]

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

No evidence of nobility. Completely unsourced and promotional article. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support 100% self-published sources Abcmaxx (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this meets WP:NSCHOOL. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep a notable Engineering college which is affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of oldest and notable engineering college in Meerut affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Yashvash60 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify:Sources are not available and the present ones are self published hence definetly fails GNG. But the subject is a notable educational institute which lacks sources to establish notability. So moving to draft is recommended as interested users can work on the subject after finding suitable references of any kind. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 10:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 20:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, leaning towards delete. Yashvash60, could you provide evidence that this instituition is particularly old (especially since it claims to be founded in 2001) or notable, therefore making it wp:NSCHOOL? I tried but I can't find any evidence of that by myself. Necrothesp, I do see that it awards degrees, but from what I can tell, their degrees are mostly trade certifications/industry group certifications, ie [amazon web services]] certified user, etc. There are many instituitions that grant these degrees, and I don't believe that any of them are by themselves notable per wp:NSCHOOL. I would appreciate your thoughts. Warmest regards, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Changed my !vote to delete - searching for the instituition by name doesn't even show any coverage in newspapers or review journals. I can't imagine how a tertiary institution that succeeds under GNG or NSCHOOl could possibly have 0 coverage in unconnected sources. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by what you mean. The article lists plenty of degrees up to PhD level! We have always kept degree-awarding institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Necrothesp, could you point out where it says that this institution grants research PhDs? From what I can tell, the closest thing they offer is a DPharm, which is certainly a professional degree, not a research degree. Warmly, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 13:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The school also offers a Ph.D (Doctor of Philosophy)... But in any case, professional degrees are as valid as general degrees. They are not simply "trade certifications/industry group certifications" as you allege above, but degrees! According to the article, it grants BTech, BPharm, MPharm, MCA, MBA and PhD. Every one of those is a recognised degree, not a trade certification. These (plus others) are confirmed by the college's website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article makes such a claim, but the present website for the instituition has dropped that claim: [58]. At any rate, granting of degrees doesn't necessarily mean it will survive under GNG - pre wp:schooloutcomes, the most important thing that saves an instituition's notability is substantial secondary source coverage - which I simply haven't found evidence for. Warmly, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 15:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources are independent of the subject. Alexius08 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of colleges affiliated with Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University: Article does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT (NSCHOOL). Sources are not independent of the subject. No SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep votes do not provide any sources or rationale based in guidelines. Being affiliated with a notable school does not make this subject notable. // Timothy :: talk 16:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Sikha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable -- the references are PR, and so is the doctorate from non-notable university DGG ( talk ) 09:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he meets WP:GNG. The citations from the Toronto Star and The New Indian Express are WP:RS. PK T(alk) 21:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

both those references are promotional interviews, the sort of interview where the interviewer asks leading questions, and the subject of the interview says whatever they please about themselves. We have for several years realized that these are not independent sources in any real sense--the paper simply prints whatever the subject (or the subject's PR people) tell it. Even otherwise good papers do this, and it essentially means we cannot trust as independent sources anything in a news source which does not clearly indicate independent reporting with editorial control. Even the NYT does this sort of promotion and even more blatant choice of products to include in its style pages. It always did, but they're harder to distinguish in the online version. To the extent they show anything at all, they show the work of the press agent. DGG ( talk ) 09:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keephas few wp:rs on google but article reads promo.needs rewriting can be saved by editing,deletion is not necessary.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 02:29, 28 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. Minimal involvement here and nothing since the relist, none other than the nominator wants deletion but there is not clear consensus one way or the other. Fenix down (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Johansen[edit]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to a single one-minute substitute appearance in an allegedly 'fully professional league' eleven years ago. The rest of his football career has been at a much lower level and there is no evidence of any WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - made 5 appearances in league and Cup, and there appears to be coverage. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to have played more than 1 professional game - featured for 90 minutes in Europa League group game against Steaua. NFootball is a daft sng, but he is not just a 1 trick pony like other nominations. Think this needs to be discussed properly at NFootball.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 25 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. TNT but a proper recreation permitted Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cahill (author)[edit]

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

Non-notable author biography. The primary source is his speaking agency's page. A whole section is devoted to a single article he wrote in a now-defunct magazine. Promotional in nature. A search for sources off-wiki revealed nothing of note. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found book reviews for two of his books with notable publications which I have added. That and he is a Fellow of the Royal Academy (which meets NProf3). Article needs chopping down.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with David. in addition, there might need to be a few more sources signifying unique coverage, but the amount of sources within the article is reasonable, and most of them are external, as in, not made by the subject Totalstgamer (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably weakly notable (based only on two book reviews), but the entire article is overly promotional and WP:TNT must be applied. Wouldn't mind a WP:PROMO delete, where someone else can start from scratch. SportingFlyer T·C 12:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Umar (Lahore cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has played 5 FC and 3 List-A matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only source is Cricket Archive. As it stands, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Umar (PIA cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Pakistan International Airlines cricketers or similar Has played 1 List A match, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where players with 1 or a few matches but no coverage, are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Catholic College, Casino[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like it passes WP:GNG just based on the sources currently in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 02:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one looks ok to me with the existing references. I also found this, which I have not added as it suggests this is a fee-paying school and there is nothing in the article about that at the moment - so didn't want to put it in without a fuller understanding. Also found this, which I think is about their building project, but cannot access it. Tacyarg (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sportingflyer. Deus et lex (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niketa Agrawal[edit]

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

lack of independent and reliable references, fails Notability. LucyLucy (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails wp:gng and wp:rs completely.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 02:24, 28 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) 08:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

AfD vacated due to sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 1. Daniel (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Astha Agarwal[edit]

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

Do not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. LucyLucy (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete or draftify: no reliable source on google, case of wp:toosoon.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 02:22, 28 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) 08:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian diplomat terror plot trial[edit]

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

Wikipedia is Not News. The page seems like a WP:POV fork. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein which article is this a WP:POVFORK of?VR _talk 01:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MEK. Even see how awkward the title is.--Mhhossein ^talk 04:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Major trial case in Europe concerning a terrorist plot involving an Iranian diplomat. The first of its kind in Europe. Countless of RSs covering this. Obviously notable. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of 'The first of its kind in Europe' and 'Countless of RSs covering this' are going to make a NEWS notable. I hope this nomination don't become a disaster like the RFCs. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Of course an Iranian diplomat being jailed for terrorist charges is notable.

"An Iranian diplomat has been jailed for 20 years over a failed bomb plot in France that has stoked tensions between the EU and Tehran even as they scramble to save a landmark international nuclear deal."FT

"Assadi’s conviction comes at a critical time and has the potential to embarrass his country as U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration weighs whether to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers." AP NEWS

"His conviction is the first time an Iranian official has been sentenced for terrorism in the European Union since Iran’s 1979 revolution, and it comes as President Joe Biden is considering whether to rejoin the historic 2015 nuclear accord and to lift the sanctions on Iran that were reimposed by his predecessor Donald Trump."VOA NEWS

Here are more from THE TIMES, NY TIMES WSJ, and many more are available! If this is not notable, then I don't know what is. Idealigic (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, using a similar argument, Maraym Rajavi's detention in France should be more notable. You know there are plenty of sources for that. What's your opinion? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein you should first try expanding Maryam Rajavi#France. If there are objections about UNDUE there, then yes it would be fair to create Maraym Rajavi's detention in France. That was also a notable event, especially since many MEK supporters committed suicide in response.VR _talk 21:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: Thanks for the suggestion, that looks fair enough. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sustained coverage from RS about the subject, although as it stands, the article reads like a hit-piece against the Iranian state - however even though it's current not NPOV, we should remember that wp:DINC. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears quite likely to have lasting significance. That and the international coverage suggests this meets criteria laid out at WP:EVENTCRIT. The article for Asadollah Asadi, on the other hand, should probably be smerged per WP:BLP1E. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 12:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This notable case should have an article. Eventually it could be merged with Asadollah Asadi to avoid POV fork. Otto (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article for now, but merge Asadollah Asadi into this article. If a few years pass and this topic doesn't get further coverage, then re-nominate for AfD.VR _talk 21:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Smerklo[edit]

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

Subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search shows hits in unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not LinkedIn. —Kbabej (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. A guy with a job. Mccapra (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Promotional article about a non-notable businessman. 00:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is consensus to not delete the article, but no consensus about whether it should be kept or merged (and if so, where to). That's a matter for further talk page discussion. Sandstein 10:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infodemic[edit]

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

A neologism that, although used in RSes, don't seem to have much background in it other than one history sentence that may warrant a Wikipedia article, such as Fuck. A Wiktionary entry is present, and that seems enough. Here, nearly all results are from the Voice of America, and merely use the term, without stating anything about that specific word, something you expect in articles about words. Gerald WL 13:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Gerald WL 13:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Epidemic. This term has increasingly been used by the media and WHO and could be useful to our readers. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 15:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does not show a WP:MERGEREASON - it is not duplicate or overlap to Epidemic or other articles. I would suggest a See Also at misinformation or disinformation. It does seem prominent in RS and common usage at 1.2M google hits - e.g. Nature, Lancet, WHO, the U.N., NY Times, National Geographic, Has it’s blog, WSJ, NBC News, etcetera. Merrimack-Webster traces it here to a 2003 Washington Post article on SARS. Beyond just a description of situation, it is discussed as a practical difficulty for researchers from too much research in one topic at ZD Net and CMU and Science Daily; as a social studies topic; as a social media policing with health officials CNN. I don’t think the multiple concerns from infodemics would be addressed by any way other than its own article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does IMO per Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger's #3 –Short text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. (and maybe even #4 too). Notice also that in almost a 1-year period, this stub has not expanded beyond its rough two paragraphs. Btw, I'm not against keeping, though merging would bring the topic to more of our reader's attention. G'Day, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 16:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to Keep. I just created same page in Irish. The page is useful in Irish as it helps define and develop the vocabulary and there are not many forums where that can be done. The meaning of the term in English is obvious, but terminology in other languages far less so. TGcoa (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TGcoa, this feels off. You basically said to vote to keep because Irish people won't understand the term. We're talking about the English WP, foreign-language WPs are mildly of concern here. Gerald WL 08:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other language are maybe mildly of concern but something to bear in mind. If the article in English is deleted, the pages in the other languages will continue. Odd? These pages in other languages help with defining the term, when the word or words to be used, how to translate the idea or ideas, is not entirely obvious. So keeping the page in English indirectly helps the other languages, some of them like Irish, fighting to survive.TGcoa (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TGcoa, it doesn't matter. The English language is not the backbone of others. If someone on the Irish WP starts an AFD because it is deleted in English, and there's no right reason to delete it there, then it should be kept there, but not here. Common rookie mistake, nothing to fear. Gerald WL 14:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to Keep. WHO has a Department fo Infodemics (https://www.who.int/teams/risk-communication). This is the source of a rapidly growing field cognate with infodemiology (named and definied by Prof Gunther Eysenbach in 2002 - Eysenbach G. Infodemiology: The epidemiology of (mis)information. Am J Med (Editorial) 2002 13 (9): 763-765). My paper "Infodemics and infodemiology: A short history and a long Future" has just been accepted by the Pan American Journal Of Pulbic Health — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggy119 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Rumo(u)r as they are the same thing. This is the main point of WP:DICDEF, "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 25 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) 08:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John William Richardson[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor requires the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and with the only sources being a blurb's worth of information in a local history book and an undergraduate history essay by a student at the local university, it doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every mayor of places that currently have over 50,000 people are notable, and that is the only threshold that would make Richardson notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mayor of a regionally important city. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just calling a city "regionally important" is not a notability freebie that exempts a mayor from having to get over WP:NPOL #2 on his sourceability, or from the article actually having to contain any substance about his political impact. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being mayor seems to be the basis for a claim of notability but being the mayor of a county town is not sufficient. Equivalents to North Bay would be Tunbridge Wells in the UK, Agrigento in Italy. or Vryburg in South Africa. Mccapra (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG with the sources available, and doesn't pass any relevant SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Redkie[edit]

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

Norbet Redkie is a successful businessman, but I don't know if much more can be learned from this article. The typical successful person in their industry must have some successes. There are some awards won by him, but I do not think that they are enough to prove that he should be in the encyclopedia. I wish him further successes, but there is still time before I'd invite him to Wikipedia. Nadzik (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nadzik: I appreciate the opinion and giving the intervention that kind of range, nevertheless I can't agree with your definition of a "typical successful person". When a given businessman runs ever-popular pubs throughout Warsaw and beyond, while at the same time producing feature films awarded at international film festivals, then in my criteria such activities are worth attention, and therefore I've adequately included them in a dedicated article. The man in question doesn't need "self-promotion" because he is a perfectly recognized individual, which has been consistently reflected in the number of quoted articles. — Kochas 23:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best source I am seeing is a WP:INTERVIEW piece here [59], then there are some mentions in passing. I am not seeing how he meets WP:NBIO, but ping me if further sources are presented and argued to be in-depth and reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG by having significant news coverage. Peter303x (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter303x, I am not questioning the amount of the coverage, just its quality. Nadzik (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 25 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) 08:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chettinad Group[edit]

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

No references to establish company notability. Advertisement. External links. Timberlack (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are essentially no sources on this article, links to the websites of the subsidiaries do not count as sources. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of websites, that is all this page is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nominator of this AfD has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A poor article as its stands, but a substantial Business Standard article "The father, son and an unholy split within the Chettinad Group" (20 June 2015) says "the over Rs 10,000-crore Chettinad group is considered industrial royalty in South India". AllyD (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added two references, both covering the company history triggered by disputes in 2015, but searches find more, up to the present ("Raids at Chettinad Group premises", Deccan Herald, 9 December 2020). Enough to meet WP:NCORP, despite the current bare-bones article. AllyD (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a large industrial group having historical significance [60] [61]. Its subsidiary Chettinad Cement is a prominent cement manufacturer in South India [62]. M4DU7 (talk) 07:25, 25 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) Scorpions13256 (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baker Memorial Girls High School[edit]

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

Does not pass criteria set forward by WP:NSCHOOL. There is not a single reference is there to prove the notability and existence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle eyer333 (talk • contribs) the nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. ~~Searching yields ~3700 results and no news results. It is unlikely that there are any reliable sources at all.~~ ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 14:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the article with two independent english language sources and cleaned up a bit of the prose. What do you think now? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considering similar articles (see List of schools in India#Kerala), the sources provided here is relatively notable when comparing with similar articles. I think adding the secondary sources here and some primary sources solely for the school's basic information might be enough. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 04:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found two decent sources, a statement from the Governor of the area about the school and an article in The Hindu discussing the statement and visit from the Governor. If those two sources are in english I expect there's a significant number of other sources in Hindi. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the article with the two sources and cleaned up the promotional language. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I would expect the citations to cover more than two sentences. However, considering the school is Indian, there might be a significant number of sources in Hindi as you said. It would be nice if someone could search using the native name and report the result. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 16:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - From Google Maps, the native name is ബേക്കർ മെമ്മോറിയൽ ഗേൾസ് ഹയർ സെക്കൻഡറി സ്കൂൾ. I have just tried searching for that and found even fewer results. 1260 for all results and still no news results. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 16:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If someone knows Hindi, please help determine whether there exists non-English sources. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 16:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Another source about the bicentennial. I think with the claim that they're the first girl's Christian high school and the claim that they're the first school in India to have a Girl Guides chapter makes them notable, and there's enough independent coverage to establish that notability even in English. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Per WP:MULTSOURCES, the subject should be covered by multiple sources (different publishers), and I do not think one publisher (the Hindu) covering the school is enough. Another thing, I am still thinking about whether being the first in something calls for an exception. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 18:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  If there is one more source from a publisher with reliability similar to the Hindu but not related to Hindu, then I think I will be convinced. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 18:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  The statement from the governor of the state I linked above doesn't cover that? I'm looking to see if I can find anything else but it's difficult with english sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I've also found three books which mention the school and it's 150th anniversary, but alas my ability to go to the library and borrow obscure english language Indian books is pretty limited. Specifically Polity, Society, and Women has several pages dedicated to the school. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Another book that mentions the founder and the school on 336 and can be viewed in google books as more than just the search result. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The book only has three results when I tried searching for "Baker Memorial". You can check it out by going here and type the search term. It seems to be a passing mention, but the preview is pretty limited. For the other book, it also looks like a passing mention. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 03:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I was looking at List of schools in India#Kerala and clicking on some random schools to see how many references are enough to be kept. It turns out, the requirements are pretty low. For example, take a look at Brook International School, Sasthamcotta and Infant Jesus School, Kollam. Considering this, I think the sources you have provided might be enough. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 03:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This school is in Kerala,India. But no reliable sources are there. 27.61.23.239 (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:HEY as it is a weak keep, but for gazetteer subjects like schools, that should be enough. IMO, there's been way too much deletion of gazetteer subjects over the last year. It does bear note that the range of available sources doesn't end at the same place Google does. That applies even more in parts of the world where data digitalization hasn't got as far as it has in others and contributes to systemic bias on Wikipedia. 174.254.192.137 (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails the notability guidelines due to lacking multiple, independent, in-depth reliable sources about it. As far as the "systemic bias" thing goes, about 55% of Kerala where this school is located has access to the internet and it's the 13th largest state in India. Which is on par or better then a lot of places in more "developed" countries like America. So, I don't think it's an issue in this case. Otherwise, it wouldn't be acceptable to delete an article on anything in India. Maybe if the population and (or) the percentage of people who have access to the internet was smaller there, but it's hard to make a case for the potential of bias being the cause of lacking sourcing when when the place has over 15 million people connected to the internet. More then likely there's no good sourcing because this school just isn't notable for anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The school is notable for being the first girl's school in India, which is asserted in the sources I've provided above. There's also several books which cover or mention the subject. "Polity, Society and Women" has a three page section on the missionary family who started the school under the heading "Women's Education in North Travancore," which states that the founder of the school was the pioneer of girl's education in North Travancore. There are more sources discussing the school, but unfortunately I don't have the ability to get my hands on a lot of the books that cover it. There's another book called "Above the Heron's Pool" that covers the family and the school, but the only places I can see that have it are a few scattered college libraries. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the systemic bias point, I think there are more factors affecting the bias than just the Internet penetration rate, so even with a relatively high Internet penetration rate, there is likely still significant systematic bias due to other factors. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 03:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the internet penetration rate, according to ScottishFinnishRadish there's more sources that discuss this then a lot of high schools in the United States. So, how exactly does systematic bias play into this particular AfD then? You can't have it both ways where there are supposedly multiple sources that discuss it (enough for it to be notable), but then also "oh yeah and systematic bias if those aren't good enough." Doing this fairly, you have a source that discusses the missionary family who started the school. Which likely wouldn't be usable due to not being directly about the subject if it was an AfD for a school somewhere else. So, how does it suddenly become usable in this case "because systematic bias"? In other words, "systematic bias" works as an argument against deletion when it can be used as a reason for there being no or hardly any sources. Not when it comes to situations where there are sources, but they just aren't up to the standards though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the first mention of systematic bias, which is from 174.254.192.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the IP states that deletion of this article contributes to systematic bias, and systematic bias is bad, so instead we should avoid deletion of this article to avoid contributing systematic bias. As far as I can see in the guidelines for WP:NSCHOOLS, this is not a valid reason for non-deletion, so I think systemic bias here won't work well anyway. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 07:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thanks for the details. I'm never sure where it's an issue and where it isn't myself. I guess it doesn't matter though. Since it's not a part of AfD or notability policy anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some info and refs and think it is very likely that there is further coverage in paper sources of this school, given its long history. Tacyarg (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added references are good enough for WP:NSCHOOL. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability and significance established through multiple sources now added to the article; meets WP:NORG and WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage JaiMahadev (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The user is blocked for sockpuppetry. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 10:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Comment After giving this a week to see if anyone could come up with anything and looking over the sources currently in the article, I am forced to go with delete. Mainly because the sources as clearly in the article obviously up to par. Just to give a breakdown, two references are from government sources and are therefore not independent of the subject. Plus they are rather trivial. Two sources are not even about the school. Therefore they do not address it directly or in-depth as is required. The only might work, "ADDRESS AT THE BICENTENARY CELEBBRATIONS OF BAKER MEMORIAL GIRLS’ HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AT KOTTAYAM", doesn't because it is a non-neutral blog post. That doesn't even mainly discuss the school anyway. So, I'm not really seeing what makes this pass either WP:GNG or more importantly WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Amending 'delete' to 'comment' as Adamant1 has already voted in this discussion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Thanks. I thought I looked through the discussion to make sure I hadn't voted already. Must have missed it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has sat for 10 years with no sources at all, which is a very clear violation of Wikipedias' verifiability rules. A quick google search turned up no reliable sources at all. 223.228.161.135 (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This IP is now blocked due to sockpuppetry Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominated by a sock, which is never a good sign, but discussion is far enough along now. I think the sources establish notability and there are other mentions we haven't uncovered yet as well such as https://www.jstor.org/stable/4408460. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Roblox#Popular games. The analysis of the sourcing in the discussion suggests that serious doubt exists over whether it meets SIGCOV. Daniel (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Brick Bronze[edit]

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

Non notable article. Even though this had some contreversy due to its deletion, it has never reached the popularity of the current top roblox games. This article doesn't have that much information. Either delete or merge the article with Roblox. Darubrub (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Roblox, where few popular games that appeared on the platform are mentioned. Only the cited Kotaku reference is actually talking about the game in some greater detail, the rest (and what I found in my searches) is all in passing mentions or brief coverage. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article passes WP:GNG, with SIGCOV in Kotaku, and PC Magazine, which are listed as reliable sources according to WP:VG/RS, and also SIGCOV in Player-One, and an article in Heavy, which is listed in WP:RSP as marginally reliable. Remember, an article need not solely be about a topic in order for it to provide SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Devonian Wombat "With a massive world to explore, bonafide turn-based combat that is quite honestly ripped straight from the handheld games you know and love, and enough original ideas to occupy several days of your time, Pokemon Brick Bronze is far and away the best Pokemon game on Roblox. It’s not even a contest. In fact, it may be one of the best Roblox games period with more than 388 million players." in PC Gamer isn't SIGCOV, and relying the notability on sources with questionable reliability like Heavy and Player.One (currently inconclusive on WP:VG/RS + after thoroughly reading the article, it gives the game a pitiful coverage) is a no-no imo. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Devonian Wombat. ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per available resources. Passes GNG. Timberlack (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)— Timberlack (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Niceguylucky (talk • contribs). [reply]
Comment Devonian Wombat Heavy has no consensus on its reliability on WP:RSP and Player-One is not found in there too. Darubrub (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Roblox per Jovanmilic97. None of the sources brought up here offer significant coverage. Namcokid 47 15:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Kotaku is pretty in-depth. The others do have various shortcomings though, true. Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes gng. could use some work but doesn't require deletion. versacespace talk to me 15:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roblox#Popular games. The GNG requires more than a single source (Kotaku) with significant coverage. The other sources are weak or unreliable, per above. I'd support a split for the aforementioned section to its own article, based on the amount of coverage Roblox games have received as an entity. But this singular title does not have enough coverage to warrant a full/separate article. Indeed most of the sources cover Brick Bronze among other Roblox titles. czar 06:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any chances this can be used? ^[1] versacespace talk to me 02:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most of its coverage is around Roblox and not really as an independent game. It has more coverage than a lot of illegal mods but still not more than a few sentences which would fit sufficiently at another target. Archrogue (talk) 18:25, 28 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 Georgetown Hoyas#Soccer. I am satisfied the a consensus exists below to redirect. Please feel free to merge the content from behind the redirect if so desired. Daniel (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw Field (soccer)[edit]

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

College stadium which does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Georgetown Hoyas#Soccer, merging content to briefly mention the field there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is a relevant article with primary and secondary sources. It is the home stadium for a popular and relevant college soccer team, so it should be kept as its own article. It is also a stadium with a unique feature, so there’s another reason to keep it - Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per Bushranger. Giant Snowman 08:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Georgetown Hoyas#Soccer - the coverage is nowhere near enough to pass GNG and the structure is nowhere near important or significant enough to pass NBUILD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, it's the home stadium of a top college soccer team, there would be no benefit from redirecting it. - Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A stadium currently needs to pass GNG or NBUILD to have an article and this one doesn't. If you want that policy to change then it might be worth starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG due to sources like [63], [64], [65], and the ones already in the article. This is the home stadium of one of the top college soccer teams in the country. It's notable. Smartyllama (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of those sources are in-depth about the stadium, all are mere mentions, consisting of a listing and a single mention. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the teams in the league have the stadium articles. "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." Ludost Mlačani (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No that's not true at all, New Mexico State Aggies, Utah Valley Wolverines, Chicago State Cougars and many others do not have articles. Notability is not inherited so the fact that some colleges might have a notable stadium does not mean that all college stadiums across the entire USA are automatically notable. Your assertion that we are singling this one stadium out is also false as there have been at least six up for AfD recently and that's just the US ones. There have also been many Spanish non-notable stadiums up for deletion with the exact same rationale, which is that there is simply no evidence that they meet GNG or NBUILD. This discussion is about this particular stadium so unless someone can prove that this stadium meets criteria, it is not notable. If you wish to suggest that all stadiums are inherently notable, then maybe you need to start a discussion at WT:NSPORTS or WT:NGEO Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the teams you mentioned have anywhere near the coverage or significance of Georgetown, which has won multiple national championships and receives significant coverage. Spanish college soccer teams (if they even exist, which I highly doubt outside maybe intramurals) have even less coverage. It's not at all comparable. Smartyllama (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG in my opinion. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist to see whether this should be kept or redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not enough for GNG in my opinion. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to comment on the sources provided, Top Drawer is a passing mention, as is dcist and White and Blue briefly mentions it along with 9 other completely unremarkable and non-notable stadiums. I can't see how GNG is met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More sources, just in case the others weren't enough (they are) - [66], [67], [68], [69], and a bunch more but I'm not going to source bomb. Smartyllama (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and none of them are in-depth articles about the field. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that and it's clear nothing will satisfy you. There are several sources in this discussion and in the article itself that are about the field. Not that they are even required to be exclusively about the field, yet several of them are. But it's clear nothing will convince you this is notable, and I hope the closer will treat your !vote accordingly. Smartyllama (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I've said it twice, another editor has also pointed it out. And we're saying it because it's true. One of the above citations, which does go into the field, is from a primary source, and therefore cannot be used to show notability. The other 3 are simple mentions of the field, two in articles about games played about the field, and another regarding the donation the field's namesake made to the university. So yes, I do hope the closer weighs the value of the additional sourcing provided. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the donation they made to the university to fund improvements to the field, which is why it's named after them. That's about the field substantially. Smartyllama (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The non-primary source dedicates one sentence to what it calls a "field." That's not sigcov. SportingFlyer T·C 23:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I don't think the sources show WP:GNG since I don't think any of them directly cover the stadium, but I think this can easily be merged to the Georgetown Hoyas men's soccer article instead of the target posted above, which is a less specific merge target. Just not notable enough for a standalone article. SportingFlyer T·C 02:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Announced. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Temple[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Russia Temple

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

This temple of the LDS Church does not yet exist and is not under construction. Where it will be built is still unknown. The entire basis of the article is that the president of the LDS Church stated in 2018 that the church would build a temple in Russia. That's it – that's all we have. I think until we have more details as to how this project will go forward – if it will at all – we should hold off on having an article for it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. I would add that if built it almost certainly won't have this as a name anyway, as temples tend to be named after the city they are in. Mangoe (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had added it prior to understanding whats been generally considered a standard in recent years (only temples completed or under construction). So because of this, I agree with the nomination for deletion if that's the consensus. That being said, almost all temples announced over the pulplet go to groundbreaking within a few years. Announced temples not being built is so rare that all 4 announced temples that were never built have wikipedia articles. The Russia Temple is the first and so far only temple announced by the LDS Church without a named city, making the Russia Temple unique among other announced temples. As for it being renamed, some dedicated, operating temples gets renamed every so often.Dmm1169 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- All four announced temples that were not built do not have WP articles. There are no stand-alone articles for the Far West Temple, the Adam-ondi-Ahman Temple, or the Independence Temple. The only one that exists for a not-built temple is Harrison New York Temple. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - good observation. The Harrison New York Temple is also the only one that efforts were suspended since the 1830s. Again, suspension of efforts are rare. In the 1830s it was due to the members being forced from their land. For Harrison, it's likely because of significant delays due to community opposition and the announcement of the Manhattan Temple. The remainder (more than 97% of all temples, and more than 99% of those announced post-1830s) were built and put in operation. Unlike individual congregational church buildings and stake centers that dot each temple district, a temple was built as a centerpiece to a LDS Community or a building that adherent members pilgrimage to in areas further out (which would be the case for the Russia Temple). As I mentioned before, I’m perfectly ok with the removal of the page if that’s the consensus, I just want to make sure everything is taken into consideration prior to the removal of the page.Dmm1169 (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
consider delete/redirect With exception of a single sentence, all info in the page Russia temple page is already stated in List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Announced. Dmm1169 (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is going to happen. It has been announced. There is no reason to delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, what would be the objection to waiting until the building exists? Or waiting until the groundbreaking? Or waiting until a specific location is announced? Or waiting until a city location is announced? There are so many unknowns right now, it just seems way too premature. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Announced, there is no reason for this to be a separate article yet, if ever, there is simply not enough information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to the announcement section of the temple list. No significant coverage in reliable and independent sources and therefore does not pass WP:NCHURCH. The fact that it will probably be build (in some location that is not even known yet) is too thin for inclusion. NCHURCH states religious buildings/congregations are not inherently notable, so we have to wait for this temple to gain significant coverage (if it ever will) per WP:TOOSOON. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- When the building is built it will gain significant coverage. This is an assured reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps Johnpacklambert, but whether it will be built is not. That's the whole point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there doesn't appear to be coverage independent of the LDS Church of this proposal. The title will change once a location is determined (and I don't see "Russia Temple" used by any official sources) so I don't think a redirect is needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Crow[edit]

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

Not notable enough in their fields. Not enough significant third-party coverage. Clear autobiographical resume with CIO. Promotional. Maineartists (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Maineartists (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Maineartists (talk)

Comment User "Colorado125" created this page and the page for their Studio (also up for AfD). They are either Robin Crow themselves, or hired by Robin Crow since 1. Their User page states thus [70] and 2. their only contributions are to this page and the WP page Dark Horse Recording Studio which is strictly promotional and incredibly COI. Both should be deleted. Maineartists (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Horse Recording Studio[edit]

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

Not notable enough for its own page. Does not meet WP guidelines. Not enough significant coverage for a Recording Studio. Plus, already mentioned on BLP's article page: Robin Crow Maineartists (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Maineartists (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Maineartists (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses-related deletion discussions. Maineartists (talk)

Comment The user "Colorado125" created this page and also the page "Robin Crow"; the owner of this Studio. Not only is this a glaring COI; but the users page states that they are Robin Crow, or works for Robin Crow. Which makes this page purely promotional in content and should be immediately deleted. Maineartists (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ture i Berg[edit]

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

I couldn't find anything about this artist. I believe for now he fails the notability guidelines - there's no significant coverage. If someone adds the appropriate sources to prove the subject is notable, I will gladly withdraw my nomination. Less Unless (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently Per Dahlström discusses Ture Alfredsson in his doctoral dissertation, Särlingskap och konstnärsmyt, from 2002. I've written to Dahlström to ask if there's any way to get an electronic copy, as well as asked my library to get it for me through an interlibrary loan. /Julle (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing to indicate that he is anything more than a locally known folk artist. His initial situation seems similar to some artists who were:"discovered" by the Souls Grown Deep Foundation. However, the notable SGD artists had their work collected by major museums-- and written about in books, magazines and newspapers. This artist has next to no coverage, no museums and no reviews. There is nothing on the Swedish Wikipedia either.Possibly (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there is also something about him in Olle Hessle, Okända mästare, skulptur på egna vägar (2008). He is mentioned in a page on local curiosities in Årjäng here. ~~How about selectively merging this to the Årjäng Municipality article (i.e. mentioning him there with two or three sentences) and redirecting this article there?~~ --Hegvald (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, based on Julle's checking of sources. --Hegvald (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm all for self-taught artists and folk artists, however, this one is not notable. There are tens of thousands of such artists throughout the world, and we can't have an article on all of them. In this case, there just is not the kind of significant coverage in reliable sources that is required to pass WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Julles comment and source available in the article. I think this is just within the threshold for inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've now read Särlingskap och konstnärsmyt (Dahlström, 2002) as well as Dahlström's short chapter on Alfredsson in Okända mästare : Skulptur på egna vägar (2008, ed. Olle Nessle) and expanded the article somewhat as well as added them to support existing statements. I'm guessing the text on Alfredsson in En hôger Sellere which was the one source in the article earlier depends a lot on Dahlström, it seems to say very similar things. Additiontally, sv:Kerstin Högstrand wrote an article about Alfredsson in Värmländsk kultur 16:4, 1995, "Mannen med tidspistolen : om bonden, snickaren och skulptören Ture Alfredsson, Sillerud", which I don't have access to right now. In total, this means that we have a) a number of good, reliable sources from more than person, b) that the texts focus on Alfredsson specifically, at length – he's not merely mentioned in passing – and c) that they cover a significant span of time: He died in 1984, yet these texts are written between 1995 and 2011, signifying enduring interest in his life and art. Having looked into this, I'd say he passes WP:GNG; Alfredsson seems to have become, to some degree, a symbol of this kind of art. /Julle (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Julle: how long, approximately, would you say these texts are? Possibly (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I know we do not go by other stuff here, but if one wants to see what an article for a notable rural folk artist looks like, see Maud Lewis. There is no need there to scour the attic for sourcing as is being done here. Possibly (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eight pages on Alfredsson in Dahlström's dissertation, Särlingskap och konstnärsmyt, four in Okända mästare : Skulptur på egna vägar, five in Högstrand's article in Värmländsk kultur. I've no access to En hôger Sellere, the book which this article was based on before I did my additions, so I don't know how long that text is.

"Several books, plays and films have since been produced about her", says the article on Maud Lewis. This is true for a very small minority of our biographies: it's not our threshold for inclusion, nor do I think it should be: we build articles on less. /Julle (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Julle (AGF on the existence of these sources) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for a clearer consensus based on the new sources mentioned here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – in my view the sources described by Julle are sufficient to pass GNG. Wham2001 (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG with coverage, and not just mentions, in multiple sources as brought out by Julle above, article has been improved to reflect this. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Endlich gibt es ein Pokémon-MMORPG und so sieht es aus". GIGA (in German). 2017-08-14. Retrieved 2021-02-25.

[1] Hit360 https://www.hitz360.com/remembering-daddy-lumbas-sensational-backing-vocalist-ateaa-tina/. Retrieved 17 December 2020. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] Rittenberg, Adam (February 25, 2021). "Michigan Wolverines, Northwestern Wildcats football to play for George Jewett Trophy". espn.com. ESPN. Retrieved February 25, 2021.

[3] Kosko, Nick (February 25, 2021). "Michigan announces new rivalry trophy with Northwestern". 247sports.com. CBS Interactive. Retrieved February 25, 2021.

[4] Ryan, Shannon (February 25, 2021). "Northwestern and Michigan create a rivalry trophy to honor George Jewett, the Big Ten's 1st Black football player". chicagotribune.com. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 25, 2021.

[5] "Northwestern, Michigan Establish George Jewett Trophy". nusports.com. CBS Interactive. February 25, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2021.

[6] Ablauf, Dave; Shepard, Chad (February 25, 2021). "Michigan and Northwestern Establish George Jewett Trophy". mgoblue.com. CBS Interactive. Retrieved February 25, 2021.

[7] ttps://www.filmibeat.com/celebs/teja-tanikella.html

[8] ttps://www.ragalahari.com/stars/profile/3487/teja-tanikella.aspx

[9] ttps://in.bookmyshow.com/person/teja-tanikella/29673

[10] ttp://movies.sulekha.com/teja-tanikella_movie-list

[11] ttps://www.quicklookfilms.com/people/Teja-Tanikella

[12] ttps://www.cinebee.in/teja-tanikella/profile/4808782731280384

[13] ttps://chopnews.com/mr-lavangam-movie-cast-crew-and-story/

[14] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/hyderabad/teja-and-divyas-elegant-wedding-soire/articleshow/69663828.cms

[15] ttps://www.indiaglitz.com/tanikellas-son-turns-hero-with-mrlavangam-telugu--news-65635

[16] ttps://newsjizz.in/11752-the-elegant-wedding-party-of-teja-and-divya.html

[17] ttps://www.imdb.com/title/tt1579899/

[18] ttps://www.imdb.com/title/tt6925202/

[19] ttps://www.ragalahari.com/localevents/186628/tanikella-bharani-son-maha-teja-bharanis-wedding-photos.aspx

[20] "Endlich gibt es ein Pokémon-MMORPG und so sieht es aus". GIGA (in German). 2017-08-14. Retrieved 2021-02-25.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[1]