Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 03 February 05 >

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 merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona. Consensus exists below that the article shouldn't exist (the delete and merge arguments were the most compelling), so I was left with having to identify which of those was the stronger argued case. I have narrowly come down on the side of merging the content, in part because preserving content is a decent argument for merge over deletion, and secondly because the majority of the delete arguments did not preclude a merge as being an option they were open to. Daniel (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Arizona's 1st congressional district election[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2006 Arizona's 1st congressional district election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. It is literally just an ordinary election. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely my point. Every regular election for an individual seat in a national legislature is automatically presumtively notable, as far as I am concerned, and deserves a standalone WP article if it can be properly and substantively sourced. That's definitely the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But there are literally hundreds of regular national elections being held every two years. You're saying we should create an article for EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM? Love of Corey (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Nobody is forcing anybody to create any articles. But the ones that are created and well sources, like this one, yes, those 'should' be kept. Apart from WP:GNG, the election also satisfies WP:EVENT, in view of the WP:LASTING provision: "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation." Nsk92 (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona is a good compromise. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I confess my bias as the 3rd-party candidate in this race, but would note this was a notable race at the time. The New York Times dedicated a lengthy story that appeared in print on 24 Oct 2006 about this race as representative of a classic "purple" district. The incumbent Republican Congressman Renzi was under investigation by the US Department of Justice, and the US Attorney in Arizona was fired by the Republican Bush administration for opening the investigation into a Republican. Renzi was later convicted and spent 7 years in prison, and was pardoned by President Trump on his last day in office. And, contrary to the earlier assertion that it was not a close race, the two non-incumbent challengers combined to make it a close race; Renzi's internal polling showed him losing two weeks before the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbschlosser (talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dbschlosser: Wouldn't it be better to just list that whole incident in his biography and the list-article thingy for all 2006 House elections in Arizona? "I confess my bias as the 3rd-party candidate in this race" Great for telling me that for some reason. That only weakens the Keep argument. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Nebraska's 3rd congressional district election. There is no basis whatsoever for automatic notability for individual seats' elections: the content can be covered just as well in the main state article. Reywas92Talk 01:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly passes the GNG[1][2][3][4][5][6] and merging everything to the broad Arizona elections article just makes it unwieldy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Morbidthoughts: Actually, merging it into the general Arizona article would be pretty easy. A paragraph is just enough, not an entire separate article. So again, it fails WP:SPLIT. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the article doesn't need to be reduced to a paragraph; hence the standalone article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In furtherance of my merge!vote, allow me to point out WP:ROUTINE. These elections are held every two years, as required by law. And as ROUTINE says, "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence. It's why we automatically have articles on special elections, because they do NOT fall into a ROUTINE sort of standard when it comes to the regular election cycle. Love of Corey (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. "Common, everyday" in WP:ROUTINE refers to things like Friday night high school football games and regular meetings of a local school board, not to elections to the national parliament. National parliamentary elections and their winners affect legislation, government policy, national public debate, oversight of government agencies, foreign relations and so on. That's why we see members of Congress on TV every day. The same WP:ROUTINE section, looking at its actual context, gives ample examples of events that it actually means as applicable: wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, sports matches, film premieres, press conferences, etc. Not even close to national parlimentary elections. Nsk92 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, "Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence." And we're not talking about a national parliamentary election, we're talking about a national congressional election. Two different things. Love of Corey (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, if one looks at the actual full text of Wikipedia:ROUTINE (which also goes under a more descriptive name WP:DOGBITESMAN) and the examples given there, it is completely obvious that the provision refers to routine everyday types of events, not elections to U.S. Congress (or to any other national legislature). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsk92 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge I don't believe single seat races held as part of a general election are article-worthy. Number 57 17:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per nom. article fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We automatically keep articles on every member of Congress, even from the early 19th century when there is less info available that there is in this article. Elections are also significant and notable. I would agree we shouldn't have articles on all lower-level elections, but Congressional ones have national impact. There are sources to meet GNG. MB 14:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying even congressional races in districts that have been historically, reliably Democratic or Republican are notable? Love of Corey (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would this include races where the only opposition is a 3rd party candidate? Would this include a race where you have to write in someone other than the incumbent?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you asking me or MB? I'm not following, sorry. Love of Corey (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not part of a general series, and there is nothing so special about this particular election in this particular year to justify having a seperate article. Articles should not exist merely because of editor whim. We eaither should have articles on every congressional election ever for every district, or keep the current pattern of articles on special elections and grouping. Considering there seems to be no actual will to create these by district articles for each election even in the ensuing years, I think we should delete these few outliers and instead concentrate on inrpving the quality of the articles we currently have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 8 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 as spam. There is unambiguous consensus against retaining the article. Unusual influx of single-purpose accounts discounted, obviously. El_C 05:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal Brumskine III[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill businessman who does not satisfy general notability. The article does not show significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Naïve Google search shows that Hannibal Brumskine II and Hannibal Brumskine III exist and that III uses social media. We knew that.

Article was created by paid editor in violation of conflict of interest policy, which could be dealt with by moving to draft space for review, but there is already also a draft. The draft can be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

·Keep. The individual covered in the article's references are not run of the mill and the article's topics and stories themself explain why the individual is not. The coverage is also significant, hence why there is an Early Life section in this article. If you'd like to see that section improved, then please offer constructive suggestions. African publications and the Wikipedia pages that are established from them are important. As for the paid editor, this was disclosed on the article's talk page in compliance with Wikipedia's position. “Hannibal Brumskine II and Hannibal Brumskine III exist, and that III uses social media. We knew that.” Not sure what you mean by this? 68.100.232.86 (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If we take away the four articles published in December, there's very little coverage about the subject. Those four read like advertisements, and I have reason to believe that this is because that's what they are. As such they don't appear to be independent of the subject. If there was wider coverage this would look different, but I'm not comfortable relying on the current coverage to claim notability. - Bilby (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, even if he does have a cool name. Oaktree b (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His sources are all top African publications and they see him as notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salma Mansoor (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC) — Salma Mansoor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep notable within the music industry. other african entrepreneurs and politicians are cited by the same sources. 72.203.209.67 (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It clearly meets the requirements of a wiki article guys, there are pages that are nowhere near the recognition that have been up forever108.18.156.123 (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Paid-for spam has no place on Wikipedia. MER-C 12:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Checked over the sources, everything is notable. Theaugustguy (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shows significant coverage and is worthy of notice. More guidance needs to be offered on the talk page, but it doesn't meet the requirements for deletion. If this article is deleted then, it would make sense to delete the articles of hundreds of other people from the African continent - that being way more controversial and worthy of scrutiny than this article itself. Mailtoakashjha 17:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)— Mailtoakashjha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep These sources are extremely reliable from just a few quick google searches. I say keep, but also offer some constructive suggestions to the structure of this wiki in the talk page - it's fairly new. Also, the editor was correctly disclosed on the talk page, negating that point from previous voters. Perzival08 (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)— Perzival08 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong delete - The sources seem like paid churnalism and thinly-veiled press releases, and combined the sheer amount of WP: Meatpuppetry in this deletion discussion, this seems like a coordinated media campaign initiated on behalf of the subject. We should not be beholden to such venality. I hope the closing admin will take note of this. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For international (specifically sub-Saharan) public figures it doesn’t get much more notable than this. Take heed to avoid western biases when assessing references and the persons they objectively choose to highlight. Raheel086 (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree that this is a non notable Run-of-the-mill article. Alex-h (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note to closer: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theaugustguy, which concluded that there has been meatpuppetry and canvassing although not sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It meets the general notability guideline. The notability exhibited in this article's references are from multiple sources, so it doesn’t represent only one author's point of view. If we’re going strictly by the GNG then this article stays. Shivam Sharma 1997 (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)— Shivam Sharma 1997 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - Note to closer: The only thing concluded is that more evidence is needed to justify those particular claims. @Robert McClenon: @GeneralNotability: @Mailer diablo/A: It is much more productive to focus on discussing the article at hand - replying to votes above and promoting healthy discussion - then to try and crumble the foundation of the article that you specifically nominated for deletion by pivoting to unsubstantiated claims. 98.186.215.198 (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, there's quite a bit of evidence that editors were hired to create the article (both acknowledged it); that people have been hired to write and publish articleas about the subject in many of the sources used in the article (and thus they are not independent); and that people have been hired to vote to to keep the article here. - Bilby (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Bilby: Please provide proof for your claim that two editors were hired to create the article. One correctly states that they were hired on this articles talk page, making it properly disclosed - check out the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure - so in fact your tag could actually be removed for this. This is just an example of claims that either 1. are disproven when you stick to the law of Wikipedia or that 2. have no substantial evidence. 98.186.210.98 (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:OlmstedS declared here; I thought that User:Gurmani5 declared, but they created the first version here and have since been blocked for undisclosed paid editing. - Bilby (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Bilby: Yes, the user that declared on the talk page has done so correctly under Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If this is correct, your tag should be removed or I can remove it shortly. If User: Gurmani5 has not declared and has no connection with this page, then it's not of interest to the discussion for this particular articles of deletion. I'll trust, that whoever is blocking accounts is doing so in good faith, but as for this discussion let's focus on the arguments at hand. Thanks for your involvement and for clearing that up Bilby.
            • The tag notes that the page was edited for pay. This is still the case, whether or not someone has since stated that they were hired, so it is still needed on the article. User:Gurmani5 wrote the earlier draft of the article as an undisclosed paid editor, so yes, that has a connection with the current issue. - Bilby (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Bilby: Please reference something for me to get up to speed with needing to keep the tag on the page, even after disclosure, I'm not up to speed on this. And I still don't see a tangible, real life connection between two people who write an article about the same thing. Nonetheless, please send information regarding keeping the tag, even after disclosure.
                • The tag reads "This article contains paid contributions. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." The cleanup issues concern establising that the content meets requriements, not whether or not there has been disclosure. - Bilby (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Bilby: Great, so if you're making that tag in good faith, go to the talk page like the tag says and discuss it further. The article has neutral point of view for me, but if you think it doesn't then discuss it on the talk page. You haven't done so or welcomed it for others and your tag just floats in limbo.
                    • At this stage, I think I'll worry about discussion if the article is retained. It can wait on a couple more days. - Bilby (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Panel on uc berkeley talked about this very things! Wikipedia, yes, has democratized the information landscape but racial bias on wiki is still documented .. and it might even be seen right here as you scroll throughout this page. the decision of this page will show that either wiki is moving away from being a knowledge repository with bias or one where you’ll continuously be met with gatekeepers who blatantly go against wiki’s standard to silence minority voices, stories and figures - ignoring how we see things and ignoring the merit that our publications demand. The Guardian? That is the new york times of africa. Vanguard? That is our washington post! I love the challenge that this article of deletion brings to our wiki community, because we are signing off with our usernames, thus immortalizing our values here on this page for the entire world wide web to see. Kindly. Aditya108108 (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)— Aditya108108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Note to closer: Investigate the proposed spa tags for validity - ensuring they weren't done in sabotage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.186.210.98 (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every comment tagged as SPA was made by a user who has only commented on this AfD. Greyjoy talk 05:14, 10 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) 20:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Molus, California[edit]

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

I'm putting this through AfD in case anyone thinks there is any connection between this siding and Soledad Prison, whose entrance is indeed roughly opposite this spot. It's possible that the pre-existence of the siding made it convenient to build the prison nearby, but it is not the case that there was ever anything resembling a town; maybe there was a station building here (it's not clear either way) but the siding, which has always run at a diagonal away from the main, rather than the usual parallel position, and given the rural location was probably there to load produce; at any rate, for some forty years or more, it has served a produce shipping warehouse. That is what the GHits indicate as well, when they are not recording an impressive set of misscans and other false hits. It's not a notable rail location, and certainly not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Location is not notable.TH1980 (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per TH1980, this location is not notable enough for an article at all. For some reason there seem to be tons of pages about non-notable towns here on Wikipedia, many of which are only one sentence long. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:52, 7 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) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honey-roasted peanuts[edit]

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

No need to be a seperate article. Minor variation of a food group and the article has no extra information. Fryedk (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure why this can't be a separate page? The existing page is extremely large, and we already have boiled peanuts, list of peanut dishes, peanut butter etc. However I am not sure if the refs show notability for a separate page like the other articles. There is only one article provided (SFGate) that could be called significant (though that's dubious), most of the others are primary. If other editors improve it (wp:hey) I vote Keep, if not it is a Delete. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Yes, this needs to be separate. For one thing, we need to understand whether this is the same as dry roasted peanuts which currently has no content. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was noting the lack of coverage of the latter. I am inclined to separate out peanut roasting as a separate article but don't know enough at this point to judge whether one article or three articles is a better approach. Mangoe (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Peanut-Food section and Honey Roasted peanut have a similar home recipe but not actually a commercial manufacturing description so you can't tell. I had a quick look on line but other than home recipes nothing. If the process is the same roasted peanuts would be a better name for the article. Just again need the refs.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Northamerica1000, Valereee and Smirkybec are probably the best editors to improve this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I won't !vote since I was pinged, but I did find a source for the history, plus a mention on the planter's website that may mean there's info out there. I've ordered a book on the history of the peanut from the library, I'll see if it has anything in it when it gets to my branch from the main. —valereee (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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) 20:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caper AI[edit]

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. A before search links to a plethora of primary sources such as this. Celestina007 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:37, 4 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 to delete this text. Whether it should be kept as is or merged is an editorial decision that does not require AfD. StarM 02:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC) StarM 02:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Virginia's 2nd congressional district election[edit]

2006 Virginia's 2nd congressional district election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:SPLIT. It's literally just an ordinary election. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely my point. Every regular election for an individual seat in a national legislature is automatically presumtively notable, as far as I am concerned, and deserves a standalone WP article if it can be properly and substantively sourced. That's definitely the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But there are literally hundreds of regular national elections being held every two years. You're saying we should create an article for EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM? Love of Corey (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes the GNG.[7][8][9][10] Acknowledging "The media covers EVERY election" pretty much confirms the inherent notability of U.S. congressional elections. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Morbidthoughts: Actually, merging it into the general Virginia article would be pretty easy. A paragraph is just enough, not an entire separate article. So again, it fails WP:SPLIT. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're making an WP:ITSCRUFT argument after the GNG being met was pointed out. SPLIT, which is not guideline nor policy, does not apply when this election itself meets the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In furtherance of my merge!vote, allow me to point out WP:ROUTINE. These elections are held every two years, as required by law. And as ROUTINE says, "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence. It's why we automatically have articles on special elections, because they do NOT fall into a ROUTINE sort of standard when it comes to the regular election cycle. Love of Corey (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. "Common, everyday" in WP:ROUTINE refers to things like Friday night high school football games and regular meetings of a local school board, not to elections to the national parliament. National parliamentary elections and their winners affect legislation, government policy, national public debate, oversight of government agencies, foreign relations and so on. That's why we see members of Congress on TV every day. The same WP:ROUTINE section, looking at its actual context, gives ample examples of events that it actually means as applicable: wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, sports matches, film premieres, press conferences, etc. Not even close to national parlimentary elections. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, "Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence." And we're not talking about a national parliamentary election, we're talking about a national congressional election. Two different things. Love of Corey (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, if one looks at the actual full text of Wikipedia:ROUTINE (which also goes under a more descriptive name WP:DOGBITESMAN) and the examples given there, it is completely obvious that the provision refers to routine everyday types of events, not elections to U.S. Congress (or to any other national legislature). Nsk92 (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't believe single seat races held as part of a general election are article-worthy. Number 57 17:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a battleground election and worthy of an article. Super Virginian (talk) 17:31, 11 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) 20:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Rider[edit]

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

The sources given are Google Lyrics and an interview with the subject. Given that he has released just one single with a record label, it's not surprising there isn't much coverage on him. Perhaps he'll be notable one day, bur for now the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Modussiccandi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:39, 4 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. A whole lot of "I like it" vs" I don't like it" arguments here, but there doesn't appear to be a strong consensus to delete. bibliomaniac15 22:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

César Luis González[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. A first lieutenant who died in a training accident and received common awards. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - When an American military personnel of any race becomes the first of his race to accomplish a feat an article is written and no-one complains. However, now it seems that there is an agenda to delete articles of heroic Hispanic military personnel. Gonzalez was the first Puerto Rican pilot in the United States Army Air Forces and the first Puerto Rican pilot to die in World War II. His name is listed on the "Roll of Honor" of the 314th Troop Carrier Group World War II and both, his hometown Adjuntas and the Capital of Puerto Rico, San Juan, have honored his memory by naming a street after him. Are these accolades given to some-one who is not notable? Tony the Marine (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, actually, they are. Notability as defined by Wikipedia is not "a noteworthy person", it is extensive coverage in reliable, third-party sources. There is no agenda to delete articles of heroic Hispanic military personnel, and I would ask you to please dial back your assumptions of bad faith - the fact is there are quite a few articles on non-notable military personel that were created based on misconstrued presumptions of notability like yours, and therefore, when they are cleaned up, it can look like "targeting" until you consider the actual facts. That said, being the first Puerto Rican pilot in the USAAF should be a presumption of notability, but...
  • Weak keep - ...we have to verify it. I can find three hits in gBooks that mention this fact; two of them are SPSes/vanity publishers that have wording that makes it pretty clear they sourced from us. The third is an ABC-Clio published book and should be reliable [11], but my antennae are twitching as to its sourcing (i.e. they may have pulled from us...) and it is only a passing mention to boot. I'd really like to see this sort of fact cited multiple places, especially in "pre-Wikipedia" sources; the fact there don't seem to be any mentioning this makes me twitch even more. (I'll also note the fact isn't even actually cited in the article or even mentioned outside the lede.) If somebody can find a source that is both reliably published, pre-dates Wikipedia, and clearly states this fact, I'll happily change to a "full keep", but as it is right now there's merely the presumption of notability that can only be verified in the weakest of ways. I'm willing to AGF with my !vote here that sources, offline likely, exist, and thus not being a BLP that's enough, but... - The Bushranger One ping only 19:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete let us stop pretending terms like "race" have any meaning. They are fluid over time, and so the first person of x race in y nation to achieve z military designation is not a good standard for notability. China has 55 races that they recognize as being widely present there, Myanmar recognizes 85 races in their country. We follow sustained 3rd-party coverage, we do not make up inclusion criteria on our own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification please, your assertion that references didn't exist? As per your usual practice, you made this assertion without actually doing your own web search to confirm your assertion other references didn't exist was accurate? I found one. Maybe if you looked you'd find some too? Geo Swan (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Tony, being a first is significant. Geo Swan (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, first X nationality to do/receive/die during Y is not notable. We don't have pages for the first person of every nationality, US state or territory to do something, so no reason why an exception should be made for Puerto Rico. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; WP:SOLDIER is an essay and WP:GNG does not seem to apply here. While some of the uncited stuff probably needs to get backed up with something or get out of the article; AfD is not the same thing as cleanup. jp×g 17:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:GNG does not seem to apply here On what basis is this rather bold assertion made? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I probably should have said something like: per Bushranger's post above, which examines GNG and presumes notability, erstwhile no other post seems to even consider GNG (instead focusing on WP:SOLDIER or other stuff I don't quite understand). jp×g 23:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comment clearly states that he fails SOLDIER and GNG. Mztourist (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything about whether or not it has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject beyond WP:JNN. jp×g 16:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He clearly does not have SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "first is significant" -- "Puerto Rico has representation in all international competitions." It is different than being the first person from a U.S. state to do something. Durindaljb (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the policy that states "first is significant"? Mztourist (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is filled with countless entries that state "first X military casualty" with this fact essentially being just about this person's only claim to fame. That is sort of what wikipedia is all about! A person is going to have delete a large chunk of wikipedia to delete all such similar entries. Durindaljb (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then they should all be deleted unless that status has SIGCOV in multiple RS. We should not have a page for the first or last person of each nationality/ethnicity to die in every conflict. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems a rather ho-hum military career. Could be a subsection in an article about Puerto Rico in WW2 or something, no sure we need a whole article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't even feel that this needs to be discussed! Gonzalez was the first Puerto Rican pilot in the United States Army Air Forces! That alone merits it! BoriquaZurdo (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • First x nationality to die during/do/achieve y is not notable. Mztourist (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per all above "first is significant". Akronowner (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the relevant policy or guideline that supports this assertion. Mztourist (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO, having two streets named after him is a "well-known and significant award or honor." I have also added a commentary source from the Air Force: Hispanic Airmen Impact Predates Air Force that verifies information in the article and supports notability, including per WP:BASIC, i.e. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Some discussion between keeping and merging, but it looks like that discussion might need to be broader in scope and brought up in a different venue. bibliomaniac15 22:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Georgia's 8th congressional district election[edit]

2006 Georgia's 8th congressional district election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not pass WP:SPLIT or WP:GNG. It's literally just a regular election race. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely my point. Every regular election for an individual seat in a national legislature is automatically presumtively notable, as far as I am concerned, and deserves a standalone WP article if it can be properly and substantively sourced. That's definitely the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But there are literally hundreds of regular national elections being held every two years. You're saying we should create an article for EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM? Love of Corey (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes the GNG.[12][13][14][15]. "The media covers EVERY election" is acknowledgement of that and yes the coverage is significant. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Morbidthoughts: Actually, merging it into the general Georgia article would be pretty easy. A paragraph is just enough, not an entire separate article. So again, it fails WP:SPLIT. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're making a WP:ITSCRUFT argument after the GNG being met was pointed out. SPLIT, which is neither guideline nor policy, does not apply when this election itself meets the GNG and has that much citable content. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In furtherance of my merge!vote, allow me to point out WP:ROUTINE. These elections are held every two years, as required by law. And as ROUTINE says, "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence. It's why we automatically have articles on special elections, because they do NOT fall into a ROUTINE sort of standard when it comes to the regular election cycle. Love of Corey (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. "Common, everyday" in WP:ROUTINE refers to things like Friday night high school football games and regular meetings of a local school board, not to elections to the national parliament. National parliamentary elections and their winners affect legislation, government policy, national public debate, oversight of government agencies, foreign relations and so on. That's why we see members of Congress on TV every day. The same WP:ROUTINE section, looking at its actual context, gives ample examples of events that it actually means as applicable: wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, sports matches, film premieres, press conferences, etc. Not even close to national parlimentary elections. Nsk92 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, "Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence." And we're not talking about a national parliamentary election, we're talking about a national congressional election. Two different things. Love of Corey (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, if one looks at the actual full text of Wikipedia:ROUTINE (which also goes under a more descriptive name WP:DOGBITESMAN) and the examples given there, it is completely obvious that the provision refers to routine everyday types of events, not elections to U.S. Congress (or to any other national legislature). Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't believe single seat races held as part of a general election are article-worthy. Number 57 17:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep Every other election has an article here, it would be weird not having just this one. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not "every other election" has an article. There are only a handful of articles on individual, general elections. Love of Corey (talk) 01:34, 8 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) 20:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chandreshekar Sonwane[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG; no other mentions in reputable sources, the subject generally appears to be a somewhat high achieving engineer, but there's no proof of established notability. There are no third party independent sources about them. The article was created by a new single-purpose account that have made no other edits in past two years. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 21:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 21:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 21:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 21:03, 4 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) 20:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Mokánszki[edit]

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

Technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to 25 mins of professional football but a Hungarian search did not uncover any significant coverage on the player. The best source that I could find was this brief match report. As per recent consensus on similar cases, deletion should be considered. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need a better criteria on footballer notability that stops dragging in so many people who lack the significant secondary indepdent reliable source coverage that is the cornerstone to building Wikipedia articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively. GiantSnowman 22:06, 4 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) 20:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TurnPro magnetic finger[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Only one reliable source reported, which is now a dead link. Cannot find any other reliable sources in Google search. Rogermx (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It only has one source and it seems promotional. Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search only finds promotional references, nothing to meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 19:14, 10 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) 20:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Building life cycle[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTESSAY. Reads like the introductory paragraph of an Architecture 101 essay. KidAd talk 20:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one source and reads like an essay Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTESSAY is irrelevant as that's about "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic", which is not what we have here. The real complaint seems to be that the article is short. If so, per WP:ATD, what's needed is expansion not deletion. Here's some books to get you started. See also WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP.
  1. Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment
  2. Life Cycle Assessment in the Built Environment
  3. A Life Cycle Approach to Buildings
  4. Life-cycle Assessment in Building and Construction
  5. Life Cycle Assessment
  6. Life-Cycle Cost Models for Green Buildings
  7. Life cycle costing for facilities
  8. Obtaining Life-Cycle Cost-Effective Facilities in the Department of Defense
  9. Integrated Life Cycle Design of Structures
  10. Life Cycle Design
Andrew🐉(talk) 21:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wp:DINC. I've also started to extend the page to make it less stubby. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 21:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'll shock Mr. Davidson, but I'm going to agree that this ought to be kept. The idea is obviously an important term; the article as it stands still needs a lot of work but is not completely hopeless. Mangoe (talk) 00:10, 5 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) 20:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gwarn Music[edit]

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

This is long, long overdue. Unsourced for 16 years and my WP:BEFORE search is not turning up the sort of coverage required to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. NCORP is a high bar, to be fair, but for good reason. This has no hits at all on Google News, Google Books or ProQuest. Even the Discogs page is bare. There is also nothing coming up in a British newspaper search. I think this is actually the first time I've searched something and had no hits!

This surely, surely does not meet 2021 Wikipedia notability standards for a company. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that would show this record label meets the notability standard. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NCORP. The nominator is correct... this label is about as non-notable as it gets. Basically a vanity label set up by Tony Henry to release music by his new band, and it appears the label only released two singles by the band, both of which disappeared without trace, before Gwarn was absorbed into another label. The editor who created this article appears to have been an IP and SPA who only edited articles related to Tony Henry, which makes me think it may well have been Mr. Henry himself. Richard3120 (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of highly marginal interest, from a time when such articles were being created with virtually no oversight. (I created some myself, so I know of which I speak.) RobinCarmody (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Richard3120. When even the discogs page is bare, which contains almost everything on bands/labels (even though it is unreliable), you know you are "super unnotable". GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:GNG.Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:29, 8 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) 20:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Unay[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, WP:NAUTHOR. None of the references provide in-depth, reliable, independent coverage of Unay. Routine coverage only that is likely self-promotion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure promo piece on an utterly non-notable character, fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. Could have been speedied IMHO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After some off-wiki discussion a day or two ago I also believe WP:NACADEMIC#C7 is a stretch, and likely isn't met, so that's not an option either. Perryprog (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My WP:BEFORE search may be limited by my location and language (I don't live in Turkey after all), but so far as I can see, there's nothing in the way of SIGCOV anywhere. Most sources just quote him rather than discussing him in depth, and then in any case those sources quoting him do look like run-of-the-mill coverage that normally finds little use for establishing notability. Additionally, the vast majority of the coverage on Unay is from one agency, and I have doubts as to if it is reliable. JavaHurricane 01:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I've seen this article twice as a draft, and both times (1) the sources were horriffically poor - most of them were basically just quoting/closely paraphrasing Unay - and (2) Google returned absolutely nothing useful (string: "deniz unay"). It's painfullly obvious the sourcing has not improved a whit. Whoever approved this needs to be pulled aside for a lecture. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I really don't understand how this could have been accepted at AfC. The sourcing is quite poor and the subject clearly does not meet WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:GNG. Waggie (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:hello i read your comments on this article

1) If you search "Deniz Unay Social Media Expert" on Google News, you can find many explanations and articles in English. 2) "Sea Ünay" living in Turkey can examine a major name kaynaklard career completely addictive for Technology in Turkey "Social Responsibility Project" offers training and seminars for 5 years. not only in Turkey Erasmus Project has trained in eğitimcilere from abroad covered Finally, the Russian government Advocates of unity "for Social Media Regulation in Russia" online with expert names in the field in the world to have been invited to the conference Feedback has been published by inviting institutions and the Russian national press. 3) In addition, his articles have been translated into more than 15 languages. As you can see on the Talk page, Al Jazeraa has been featured in important news websites and International agencies such as Pakistan NY TIMES. 4) Deniz UNAY's views on the Covid 19 infodemia were included in the "Europan Science" Science journal and in the Spanish science article. 5) This article was previously rejected as duplicate content. Then it turned out that after my article was published, this error was copied and published by other sites. 6) Yesterday this article was approved by an admin, and then a warning was issued for this article in the form of a paid and for money article. I did not pay any name to any of them. This is definitely a mistake just like a copy content error, and I have no problem to give anyone a dignity that they do not have. Imagine if a person has been doing important studies in his country and around the world for 5 years, if his articles are translated from language to language and published, do you think there may be a doubt, I just added what I think is the most important by reviewing more than 2000 articles on googe news. It would be approved in a shorter time, not a long and controversial process like 4 months. 7) As for the conversations in the Wikipedia support chat room. I have applied all positive and constructive evaluations I deleted what I should have deleted I corrected the statements deemed inappropriate in the article. But I did not hurt me in the face of hurtful behavior towards me. I tried to understand and apply it correctly within 4 months. If the subject of this article did not deserve to be on Wikipedia, maybe it would be deleted in the first days. Frankly, it was a reason that made me hope and gave up. Finally, I do not want to lose my belief that you will be more positive and constructive in this article. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emremer (talk • contribs)

Thank you. This is *ahem* the third time that a user has pressured me into accepting an article. My weakness is with new users. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found some interesting things. Whatever he says is taken and being reported on: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] (second half). One more source about his general life, though I doubt that this is enough. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 08:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is reason to suspect that the site is being paid to do this reporting. That site is more or less the only source on his statements, and all other sources clearly state that the quotes are from that website. JavaHurricane 08:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article writing course people in the opinions of a writer in Turkey will take place in dozens of different places.

Look, there are dozens of articles in Google News results. There is a Protocol document with the Ministry of Education. We are not talking about an ordinary person An important name who produces projects, whose opinions are asked, his articles have been translated into 15 languages, and his views used in science articles It's true I have trouble understanding Wikipedia, but I'm sure this person really deserves to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emremer (talk • contribs) 10:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Hello As far as I understand from the press in Turkey and I need to make a statement about the sources 1) "Anadolu Agency", one of my sources, is the state's news agency and is a 100-year-old news agency. "Anadolu Agency" broadcasts in about 10 languages. Here you need to be an important person to make a statement or express an opinion. 2) The Independent in Turkey Sea Ünay page belonging text itself has not caused any significant article you published. https://www.indyturk.com/node/136106/t%C3%BCrkiyeden-sesler/%C3%A7e%C5%9Fitli-ya%C5%9F-gruplar%C4%B1nda-teknoloji-ba%C4%9F % C4% B1ml% C4% B1l% C4% B1% C4% 9F% C4% B1-you-how-up-e-social 3) Many national publications such as Hurriyet, Milliyet in Turkey, Haberturk has included the explanation repeatedly. 4) Approximately 5 years in Turkey CNN consulted several times in the national news as Turkish TRT channel. 5) Recently, for the adverse share on social media for Vaccine Denial of Turkey Ministry of Health Sciences Board members who place their opinions after Anadolu Agency joined the program to the TV program has a news service https://www.aa.com.tr/en/latest-on-coronavirus-outbreak/combat-infodemic-over-covid-19-vaccines-says-expert/2108013 In the title of this article, he is mentioned as a Turkish Social Media Expert and writer. It is also a name that has entered many national and international sources. why would you prefer paid publications? If you have contact with Wikipedia Turkish editors, these resources will definitely verify you. Frankly, I hope you will understand better and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emremer (talk • contribs) 10:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've changed my mind – I regret accepting it. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pure hype. Deb (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see the results on this link

Has been featured in Kazakhstan News agency and websites https://www.google.com/search?q=site:kz+%22deniz+unay%22&filter=0&biw=1280&bih=612 Also in Vietnam https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Avn+%22deniz+unay%22&oq=site%3Avn+%22deniz+unay%22&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.7452j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Spanish https://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/noticias/tecnologia/1/coronavirus-infodemia-pandemia There are many places even outside Turkey Please don't be so biased and negative For Wikipedia, it is not enough for you that someone has done major projects with the "Educator" Volunteer Author and the Ministry of Education in his own country. For example, look at this He prepared great galleries with his signature on special occasions such as Mother's Day, April 23 Children's Day, and these galleries became news in all national media. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/pg/foto-galeri/basin-ilan-kurumundan-anneler-gunu-albumu- https://www.trthaber.com/haber/turkiye/dunya-gundemine-yon-veren-isimlerin-cocukluk-halleri-412886.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emremer (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per above. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 16:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough sources and not enough coverage. The article claims that he's a writer but he hasn't published any major works, books or articles either. Keivan.fTalk 20:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Okay, I stopped at the social media expert part, that’s all I needed to 'hear' to know this was utter BS. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misplaced unsigned comment, moved from top of page:

Hello, I'm having trouble understanding the discussion here 1) From the very beginning; I work with all my good intentions and efforts and offer many resources and references. But each editor looks at the behavior of the other and writes Delete, Delete Quickly Delete. 2) Well, if everyone is going to behave so cruelly and unfairly, new editors won't have much chance to survive ... 3) Yes, if you really want to lynch and delete them collectively, I don't have the power to prevent it. You can delete it is possible. 4) Everyone deserves to be conscientious, to see the effort, to be just and kind. Finally, if a referee or review team will listen to me and understand me, I am sure, outside of this environment. a more just conclusion will come ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emremer (talk • contribs) 08:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you help me with this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources Say here Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Mainstream newspapers

Ok let's take a look at my resources accordingly 1) file: /// Users / denizunay / Downloads / 6101-14047-1-PB% 20 (8) .pdf Europine Science Peer-reviewed scientific journal published in Europe The article is published by citing his article published by Anadolu Agency. 2) http://revistaestilosdeaprendizaje.com/article/download/2171/3207/ Scientific Paper Study for the European Observatory Committee of Experts Peer-reviewed scientific journal published in Europe The article is published by citing his article published by Anadolu Agency. 3) https://www.trt.net.tr/vizyondergisi/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/mart-2019.pdf State television TRT in Turkey belongs to "TRT Vision" magazine cover his "Game Not Cyberbullying" Cover the warning did. This news operation in the Republic of Turkey News on page 30 was given to the views of the Minister of Education and Minister of Transport. 4) Among my sources were links of organizations that broadcast Mainstream Regularly. Anadolu Agency Takes Jazerá Hurriyet, Milliyet bianet.org independent Turkish Haberturk tribune.co inside and outside of Turkey, such as many reliable sources https://mubasher.aljazeera.net/news/politics/2020/4/12/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%88%D9%85%D8 % A7% D8% AA-% D8% A7% D9 84% D9 85% D8% B6% D9 84% D9 84% D8% A9-% D9 81% D9% 8A% D8% B1% D9 88% D8% B3-% D8% A3% D9 83% D8% AB% D8% B1-% D8% A7% D9% 86% D8% AA% D8% B4% D8% A7% D8% B1% D8 A7 http://tribune.com.pk/story/2208176/8-connection-5g-COVID-19 5) He also has Turkish and English CV's of his own and enough information about himself and his work. Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education, and I offer resources from other official institutions 6) Erasmus Program Training I presented as a source, https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/tech-addiction-poses-mental-physical-threats-expert-150261/ In addition, the Russian National Press has given his views on the Social Media Law Regulation in Russia after the International Conference he attended. https://www.oprf.ru/press/news/2617/newsitem/56156 https://www.gazeta.ru/tech/2020/12/10_a_13394533.shtml 7) One of his articles translated into Vietnamese and published in the entire Vietnamese national press https://ictnews.vietnamnet.vn/cuoc-song-so/tong-thong-trump-mang-xa-hoi-dang-thao-tung-tu -do-ngon-luan-cua-cong-chung-253844.html 8) Self-written and published Children's storybook translated into Turkish and English He wrote a book called Muzip Yaman telling about technology addiction for primary and secondary school children, and it was translated into English with the name Willy Yaman. More resources from all the details are available on Google All of the resources I have provided to date meet all the criteria. He is an author, an educator, his book has been published. Please help me before deleting this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emremer (talk • contribs) 15:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt it since that's how you say it in Turkish when literally translated. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 19:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're referring to the filepath. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 22:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Mountains School (Ooty)[edit]

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

Non-notable school. WP:BEFORE only reveals passing mentions in sources, so does not pass WP:ORG or WP:N. pinktoebeans (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of nobility. Fails WP:NORG. RationalPuff (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL I don't see any claims in the article nor does my search find anything that implies this is notable. Jeepday (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic101[edit]

Mystic101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity article on a non-notable rapper. Has no decent coverage outside self-published sources like Soundcloud, Fandom, Linkedin, Spotify, Apple Music etc.

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN but all the best to him. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lancer Publishers & Distributors[edit]

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

Non-notable publisher, I cannot find any significant coverage of the publisher to satisfy WP:COMPANY. Has been tagged and unrefenced for 10 years. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Indian Defence Review should be bundled into this nomination. BD2412 T 04:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The WP refs link above, and Google Books both return 10+ pages of citations and references and links to books published ... so we have WP:ITEXISTS. However, this does not satisfy WP:COMPANY. So, delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redraftify and look for references. I do not think we should be deleting a specialist Indian publisher for lack of accessible references in Google. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 2 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 18:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has been in existence since 2010 so I don't think redraftifying is an option unless someone is stepping forward to take on the job. References fail WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 22:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NCORP. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Power[edit]

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

Child actor in 3 Ninjas films at the age of 8-10, who fails the notability bar outside of that. Geschichte (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I don't feel confident casting a !vote yet, I just have to say that's a fantastic name. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMDb and twitter is not enough to establish notability. Power was in the films about 30 years ago, he is in his late 30s. This article does not meet even the most basic requirements to not be a blatant violation of BLP policies. Those say that we cannot have unverified information on a living person. Without reliable sources nothing is verrified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added some new sources. However, I am a new wiki editor and not yet familiar with all the requirements, so I wont vote for now.Chrisfilip (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. All coverage pertains to his involvements in the 3 Ninjas franchise and none of the sources contains significant coverage of just him. — BriefEdits (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Leaning keep as if he was notable as a child actor then once notable still notable. Lots of child actors don't transition into adult roles. As a child actor, looks like he accumulated a few roles in 4-5 years. In addition to 3 Ninjas movie, he was also in movie Ruby Cairo, a couple of episodes of Baywatch, an episode of ER, two TV movies (The Sitter and Day-O), and a few other TV series episodes. If some more sources are found and the article focuses on his child actor career, I think his credits should be just about notable enough for WP:NACTOR as I think there's an understanding that notability doesn't diminish over time. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Outside of 3 Ninjas, he's only had one-off appearances in a few television shows and films where he's practically last in the credits. I wouldn't say that qualifies the "significant roles" part of WP:NACTOR. — BriefEdits (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. I don't think appearing in two of the four 3 Ninjas movies as a child counts as appearing in multiple notable films, he doesn't have a cult following, and he certainly didn't make unique contributions to his field. The coverage doesn't appear to be significant enough to claim he passes WP:GNG. There are passing mentions in "where are they now?" type articles but nothing truly significant focused on him. Papaursa (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable for his child actor roles. This is not a situation of WP:NTEMP. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:56, 11 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 East Longmeadow School District. Sandstein 20:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birchland Park Middle School[edit]

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

Lack of WP:RS and fails WP:NSCHOOL — Amkgp 💬 17:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 17:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not satisfy school notability. With no references, is not likely to satisfy notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails the GNG since there are no references. I'm not finding any suitable redirect targets, either. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to East Longmeadow, Massachusetts for the reasons above. Well-intentioned article that does not meet our standards for inclusion. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 19:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: to East Longmeadow, Massachusetts, which one would think was a pretty obvious target. Ravenswing 20:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no problem with redirecting there if a mention of the school is added to the article. Otherwise, the redirect is of no value to the reader. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to East Longmeadow School District (new stub). East Longmeadow, Massachusetts is not obvious target; for all articles about elementary and middle schools in the U.S. at least, which don't meet wp:GNG on their own, there should not ever be AFDs because how to handle them is clear: merge/redirect to school district article. This has been established forever and I am amazed to show up occasionally and again see AFDs like this running. AFD is not needed at all, just exercise some editing discretion. (Is the deletion nominator just trying to run up a score?)
Public school districts in the U.S. at least are always wikipedia-notable, they are organizations with taxing authority. This school mentioned there now. No need for sources to be included in article; sources exist. "Merge" not "redirect" because material from this article was not present in the merger target when this AFD was started, and there is more to merge over. --Doncram (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to East Longmeadow School District. Now that a school-district-level article has been created, it is the correct target, as explained by Doncram. I see no need to merge, however: The information in this article is entirely unsourced, and in any event minutiae about one school aren't germane to the broader topic of the school district. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to school district or Delete under WP:TNT and create a redirect to school district. Only value of having anything here is as a plausible search term. Content about this school, if any, belongs in school district article. Unless... unless we are all missing something and this school meets WP:GNG. But there is nothing, zero, zilch, nada in the current article that would have the article survive WP:A7 if schools qualified for A7-speedy deletion, much less WP:Notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to East Longmeadow, Massachusetts as per all above. Akronowner (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Akronowner: Any particular reason that the town is a better redirect target than East Longmeadow School District? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidwr: - note that the school district page was created on Feb 4, about 40 minutes after I made my redirect suggestion above. I assume other users are taking my lead on that so I feel responsible. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 20:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked sock. MER-C 12:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete schools in the US below the high school level are almost never notable and nothing suggests this is one of the super rare exceptions to that guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the benefit of anyone looking at this AFD in the future, there are two somewhat-common exceptions: Notable school buildings such as those listed on the National Register of Historic Places - but only when the article is primarily about the building itself - and schools that have won very prestigious national awards, like those with the highest recognition from the National Blue Ribbon Schools Program. Numerically, these are rare, but when do show up, there's a good chance there is "significant coverage" from "reliable sources" where the sources and the content are "independent" of the school, which is the wiki-definition of WP:Notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - there are no citations to merge, and precious little text. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Delete One sentence, no sources or evidence of notability. To be honest this could be a speedy delete. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to East Longmeadow School District per above. Fails GNG, ORGCRIT, no claim towards NBUILD. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedia topic.  // Timothy :: talk  23:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Just an average school. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:53, 11 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) 20:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oscillate (video game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Creator is also suspected of undisclosed paid COI. WP:TOOSOON at best. Adam9007 (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (alternatively draftify). Not undisclosed paid but more likely written by the game's author itself. IceWelder [✉] 18:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No way. Fails GNG. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (just del, no draft) — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional content and the article looks like an advertisement written by the developer for selling their product. Wario-Man talk 17:39, 11 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) 20:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chalachithrolsavam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. I tried to PROD it, but an IP-only user removed the PROD without any comments. Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:33, 4 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) 20:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dita de Leon[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Previous versions of the article included the subject's plans to start producing and had a section on 'becoming a celebrity.' Let's look at the references:

[21] This is a movie review on how to throw a party at the Playboy Mansion. I cannot find a mention of the subject here.
[22] IMDB, and credited as 'Girl at Party #1.
[23] same, credited as 'Model 2.
[24] same, credited as 'Newsroom Porn Star.
[25] Her blog.
[26] Her blog again.
More recently, she had a bit role in a web series called 'Bite Me.' She acted in three episodes. The series ran for two seasons but as a web series (YouTube, I think) this does not establish notability as an actress. Also, in performing a WP:BEFORE search, she was a subject of a news story for allegedly misusing AirBnB and annoying her neighbors, but she was not charged.

So in summary, the sources do not add up to making WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG. The recent news item does not contribute either to her notability, thus the nomination for deletion. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails our notability guidelines for actresses. Having bit parts in notable productions is not a sign of notability. The sourcing is no where near enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. Article has been turned into a redirect and the nomination was withdrawn, and so eligible for speedy closure. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khin Thiri Thet Mon (businesswomen)[edit]

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

not an independently notable business woman, no objection to a redirect where she is mentioned in her fathers page but as of right now the only sources talk about her in relation to her father or are basically press releases/passing mentions about the company. Perhaps an article on the company would be more appropriate with a redirect there but I fail to see how she is independently notable. CUPIDICAE💕 17:00, 4 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. The nomination has received little support and plenty of opposition and so there is no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 19:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Schlossberg[edit]

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

American is not a monarchy. We have no heirs presumptive, and as Massachusetts showed last year people have stopped bowing to the Kennedy family and their false presumptions they are better than the rest of us. There is nothing about this guy that is anywhere near notability, and the fact that foreign journalists disrespect our Republicanism and create articles built on false assumptions of inheritance of office and power is not in and of itself a good reason to have an article on someone who has never made any notable accomplishments John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As was well pointed out in the last deletion discussion, Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and that is the level of many of the sources. Also Wikipedia does not have a grandfather clause. Early Wikipedia was a madhouse of unregulated article creation with no notability guidelines at all. So the fact that this article has sat around a long time is not in and of itself a source of showing notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nominations for deletion generally go smoother if there are policy based reasons for deletion rather than arguments based on emotion. In this case that would be:
"Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. Notability is not INHERITed." 174.212.238.163 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - a good WP:ATD would be to merge encyclopedic content to the closest notable direct relative's article and redirect. 174.212.238.163 (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This the 8th (!) AfD (missing one of the list) plus 2 DRVs - how long will this ridiculous campaign to delete the article continue?? Each time the article has added new sources and expanded. It is even more notable today then any time in the past. The deletion arguments are flawed - the topic clear passes WP:GNG. Furthermore INHERIT essay has nothing to do with it, read it now, including the disclaimer at the top - it is arguments to avoid making during an AfD, that is all, nobody here is making the argument "Keep because he has a famous relative", the argument is Keep because of GNG. The claim made above by Johnpacklambert that this article has "sat around" unexamined is obviously ludicrous in light of the many failed AfDs, extensive edit history and vast number of page views this article receives daily. -- GreenC 17:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is still no substance. He is just a run of the mill graduate student which in no way makes him notable. The coverage is vaucuous, passing, incidental or tabloid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those characterizations of the sources are extremely opinionated and not supported on examination. -- GreenC 17:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you look, the first discussion deleted this article, and nothing has fundamentally changed in the last decade to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just look through the article history and see how far it has developed. That first version that was deleted looks nothing like it is today. -- GreenC 17:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GreenC 17:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the notability guideline on articles about people, the relevant guideline for consideration of deletion of this article, which is a biography. The guideline states that a person is notable enough for an article "if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The guideline also states, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Although it's too bad that so many sources considered as tabloids have been cited in this article, Jack Schlossberg has been the subject of many other articles, which are independent from each other and the subject himself and are in reliable and reputable publications. Here are several examples:
- Sullivan, Kate (January 19, 2020). "JFK's grandson slams Pence's interpretation of 'Profiles in Courage'". CNN. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
- Budrik, Zack (January 19, 2020). "JFK's grandson calls Pence op-ed a 'total perversion' of Kennedy's legacy". The Hill. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
- Sharir, Moran (February 23, 2020). "Meet JFK's Grandson Jack Schlossberg, the Democrats' New Hope". Haaretz. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
- Hallemann, Caroline (May 13, 2018). "JFK's Grandson, Jack Schlossberg, Makes His Television Debut". Town & Country. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
- Ruiz, Michelle (May 5, 2017). "JFK's Grandson, Jack Schlossberg, Steps Into the Spotlight". Vogue. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
- Bose, Debanjali (September 30, 2020). "Meet the modern Kennedy family: The most prominent members of America's most famous political dynasty". Business Insider. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
You will also notice that the sources of the articles listed above are each notable enough to be the subject of their own article on Wikipedia. The topic of this article has only received more media coverage since this article last appeared at AfD, meaning it should be an easy decision to retain this article in the encyclopedia. - tucoxn\talk 18:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No all those are cases of coverage not based on anything he did, but based on being related to other people. This all fails any reasonble understanding of not inherited rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a completely inaccurate characterization of the sources. Even if he became president of the USA they will continue to mention his famous family, nobody can avoid that shadow. Sorry you don't like how he became notable. I don't like how some people because notable either but I don't go around trying to delete those articles. . -- GreenC 22:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You recognize they are notable because of the sources. There is no rule, policy, guideline or anything that disqualifies a notable person because of how they became notable. -- GreenC 22:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I recognize that Wikipedia very often considers living persons to be notable simply because they are covered, in whatever contexts and for whatever reasons, in reliable sources. Not because the subjects have actually accomplished anything of note. Caro7200 (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to note that Caro7200 admits "he's notable" and understands that Wikipedia "considers living persons to be notable simply because they are covered, in whatever contexts and for whatever reasons, in reliable sources." That's exactly what's going on in the article about Jack Schlossberg, who has received received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. - tucoxn\talk 00:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's also important to note that coverage of the Kennedys in People or the Post is primarily about attracting eyeballs and therefore revenue. And it's also important to note that when the article was originally deleted, in 2011, the subject was mostly known as a Kennedy who attended school. In 2021, the subject is mostly known as a Kennedy who attended school and, I guess, accompanies his mother to events. As an alternative to deletion, the article can be redirected to Caroline. Caro7200 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every commercial news source is in the business of attracting eyeballs and making money. Your requirement for him to have done something more (what?) is not supported by any rule, policy or guideline, it's setting the bar higher than exists, we gauge notability based on coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are lots of Wikipedia articles about people who are less accomplished than Kennedy, and we do not reject articles because of how their notability was achieved. -- GreenC 17:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC) (sig orignally posted 03:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Ah, yes, we can pretend that, when covering heirs and socialites, the NYT, for example, and People or the Post have the exact same motivations. I see this as most similar to an Alyssa Carson situation... And, as per the "weak" aspect of the vote, I don't think that it's completely unreasonable that JFK's grandson has an article primarily because he's JFK's grandson... Caro7200 (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah a rare sighting of WP:INHERIT: I don't think that it's completely unreasonable that JFK's grandson has an article primarily because he's JFK's grandson. This is precisely what WP:INHERIT is made for, it is an argument to avoid in AfD. Arguing keep/delete because of who he is violates WP:INHERIT. We have articles because of sources. -- GreenC 17:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did advocate last year for keeping an article on one of Oswald's girlfriends ... so perhaps I've become a soft touch when it comes to the Kennedys. Caro7200 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If this were the first time this article had come to AfD, I might have recommended deletion, but this article has passed AfD with a "keep" twice before, and the subject hasn't gotten less notable in the intervening three years since the last "keep" verdict. In fact, he has since been the subject of articles in People, Esquire, and the New York Post. So he seems to pass the general notability guideline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few editors cited coverage in the New York Post to support Keep !votes. According to recent consensus, this source is "generally unreliable" which means that it doesn't contribute to notability. –dlthewave ☎ 18:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW of the 30 citations in the article only 2 are to the New York Post, one of which reports his father died in a plane crash thus could easily be replaced with another source, such as a book. -- GreenC 19:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons cited above and in the 7 prior deletion discussions. Easily passes WP:GNG. WP:Notability#Notability is not temporary is not transient. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage is there. The anti-Kennedy nomination statement ("as Massachusetts showed last year people have stopped bowing to the Kennedy family and their false presumptions they are better than the rest of us") concerns me. We haven't bowed Of course it'll talk about his being a Kennedy. The nomination statement shows a bias against the Kennedys that is concerning. Nominator's feelings on the Kennedys are so strong that they seem to affect his judgment of notability. He should strike some of the nomination statement, IMO. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Kennedy statements have been there in most of the AfDs, like dog whistles. We keep having these repetitive AfDs. -- GreenC 14:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And true enough, the Kennedys, like some other wealthy families, act like pretended Royalty.
But all of that has nothing to do with notability as it is understood in Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per snow, as well as the fact that the premise of this nomination is just some kind of rant about the user's person beliefs about the media. "the fact that foreign journalists disrespect our Republicanism and create articles built on" is admitting that the subject meets notability guidelines for a WP page. Not a matter for AFD at all.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is this a personal vendetta by the nominator? I dropped eleven sources in the last AfD nom for this article which was started by the same nominator. The notability of this person (scion only known for looking somewhat attractive he may be) is approaching indisputability. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if America looks like a monarchy from time to time, it's not Wikipedia's fault. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:45, 11 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) 20:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gopakumar.R[edit]

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

Non-notable artist who fails WP:ARTIST, WP:ANYBIO, WP:SIGCOV. Citations in the article are only some passing mention. Google search doesn't provide anything better. RationalPuff (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wai Thu La Pyae[edit]

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

non notable student actor, no major roles and no in depth coverage in any language. CUPIDICAE💕 16:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per nom. I did a quick search in my language and can't see any way that this can pass WP:GNG. Phoela14 (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to a speedy deletion, I just wanted a final nail in the coffin since they've repeatedly created it. It's bordering on a hoax, actually. CUPIDICAE💕 18:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that it's a vanity article judging by the fact that the user has no interest in editing outside of this article and is doing their absolute best to disrupt this discussion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With all of that in mind, I have requested salting Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  // Timothy :: talk  18:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per all above. I have read the only reference and it is about a completely different person, with no mention of this article's creator. pinktoebeans (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim to notability is made here. As Pinktoebeans indicates, the only reference cited is about a completely different person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Current sources doesn't indicate WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked sock. MER-C 12:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per all about. There is no such Burmese actor with that name. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 09:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just because someone "wants to be a famous artist" does not mean they are notable. It is articles like this that make me 100% sure we need to make creating articles more difficult.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I think we need to make all new articles go through AfC. However, I think we need to change our perameters so that users cannot create new articles in their first 50 edits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure that we could call this a "hoax". It is an article written it seems by a high school senior in Myanmar who has a very weak grasp of the English language about himself. As best I can tell, he is involved in band at his school, and may or may not have been involved in school theatrical productions. It is unclear what he means by wanting to be an "artist", since in some circles this word is actually used instead of musician. Beyond that his only other claim seems to be that he went and visited multiple places in Myanmar, and he created what apparently is meant to be a list of specific places that he visited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another copy-paste article is incubating in draft namespace as Draft:Thu La Pyae. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 17:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per Praxidicae's nom rationale. Furthermore, yes I agree with Johnpacklambert, I believe a mechanism should be developed to that effect & although it is quixotic of me to say this, but I also want a time to come whereby all articles are mandated to pass through the AFC process, theoretically speaking, that would be a very daunting task if it were to happen but I feel that would eliminate UPE & the creation of non notable articles. Celestina007 (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. If the closing admin would be so kind as to ping me, the associated Wikidata item was nominated for deletion but can't be deleted while the article still exists here. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Failure of GNG, BIO and NACTOR. JavaHurricane 14:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Clearly not notable. This page is being repeatedly recreated, if possible please salt it. Ashleyyoursmile! 07:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't think this is relevant. VocalIndia (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete :) — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:42, 11 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) 20:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P2P Foundation[edit]

P2P Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; not notable outside of posts by Satoshi Nakamoto, and it is already adequately covered in that article. Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands - yeah, all the RS coverage in English is passing mentions or about Satoshi Nakamoto, and most webpages talking about the P2P Foundation are self-sourcing in some manner. The other language Wikipedia articles are mostly this article translated. There may be sources that demonstrate notability, but we'd need them to save the article. A lot of p2pfoundation links in other Wikipedia articles seem promotional as well - David Gerard (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a small organization working on a small budget. Not much traction. gidonb (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Their work is sometimes cited, but nothing suggests the organization meets WP:NORG/GNG (I can't find any source discussing the organization, its significance, history, etc.). On a side note, I do wonder why so much of their work (from their websites) is on Google Scholar. What criteria are used to get a website indexed there? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:47, 9 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. Tone 15:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balázs Egyed[edit]

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

There appears to be some discrepancy here. He either fails WP:NFOOTBALL or just about skin-of-teeth passes it with one game. Soccerbase is the source that suggests that he did play one league game about six years ago. Soccerway, HLSZ and MLSZ all suggest that he does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Please note that the league cup game was against a third tier side so wouldn't qualify him for notability and that kispad means he sat on the bench and didn't play, if my Hungarian teacher has taught me correctly. In terms of coverage, the best I could find was name checks here and here as well as a paragraph on his club's own site and this very, very brief interview so I think he doesn't pass WP:GNG either. If we say, for the sake of argument, that he did play that one league game, there is still strong consensus from more than 100 AfDs that this is not sufficient when GNG is not met. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is crazy we consider someone notable after playing in one game when we do not if they have one significant role in a notable production. We really should go to at least a two game minimum for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG, likely fails NFOOTBALl. The fact we can't tell definitively about someone in the recent past shows just how non-notable he is. GiantSnowman 16:06, 4 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) 20:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Bawiec[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG - there are plenty of refs, however there is no significant coverage - only passing mentions. It's also a WP:COMPOSER fail - none of the awards are major, the pieces composed are not notable. The page was deleted but there were no significant changes to the career ever since. Less Unless (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing anything here that suggests meeting WP:NCREATIVE or WP:NBIO in general. Do ping me if better sources are found or new arguments are presented. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Less Unless. –KamilAli 15:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets criterion #10 of WP:MUSICBIO by having done music for some major TV shows and possibly meets other criteria working with other musicians that may have had Billboard hits, which needs to be researched. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Probably delete. I can't find solid external confirmation that he did compose music for NCIS. If it's music, it's not clear what kind of musical works are involved, maybe it's incidental music. Was he a key contributor in this regard or one of several, etc. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted per G5. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ishwar Sakshi[edit]

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Only one review source cited Jenyire2 (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the 'sources' provided are not reliable, and do not equate to significant coverage. These sources appear even less reliable than imdb, being either outright blog posts or apparently promotional. Not a notable movie. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 19:44, 4 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. Tone 15:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sally the Flightpal[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Zero real world notability as per WP:PLOT. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:14, 4 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. Tone 15:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rocco Did It Again![edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Cuoxo (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cuoxo (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 4 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. Tone 15:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Salmi[edit]

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

The gentleman fails our notability threshold. He appears to be a WP:ROTM businessman, doming his job well, but not meeting WP:N. Fiddle Faddle 13:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For sure, the article has issues: poorly written, poorly referenced, likely COI editing, etc. But if (and yes, it is an 'if', given the dearth of references) all that is stated is actually true, the person is clearly real-life notable; it's then just a question of satisfying WP:GNG. Most of the sources listed under 'External links' (sadly, not cited via footnotes in the usual manner) are dead, but one or two remain, mainly the Vanity Fair piece. Also, there's this half-hour documentary by the Finnish public broadcaster Yle. To call him 'Run-of-the-mill' seems harsh IMO, regardless of whether WP's notability can be satisfied. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep dependent on being rescued with additional sources. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please note the entry has been revised to address notability and improve the entry. Dead links have been removed and multiple references added. Please advise if more revisions are required. alexnadal. — Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 7 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. Tone 15:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Robicquet[edit]

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

Current sources doesn't pass WP:GNG Cuoxo (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cuoxo (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails our standards for models and academics. Please convince me he passes based on the intersection. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has some high-citation publications, but they tail off very quickly, they have many authors, and he seems to have left academia for industry without spending enough time to develop a notable academic career. I don't think a single-digit h-index in a high-citation field is enough for WP:PROF#C1 unless there is more to say than that he was briefly a member of a high-performing research group. And beyond that, there seems to be little else that rises to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 6 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. Tone 15:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Langford[edit]

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

Was originally deleted through Prod. Then re-created as a redirect to the footballer Andy Langford. Was then turned into an article about this basketball player/coach. Redirect was restored and article was recreated. Speedy was declined due to playing professional basketball. However, the team he played for does not qualify for WP:NBASKET (the correct link, which isn't in the current article is this. So, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBASKET. Onel5969 TT me 13:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as the recreation of previously deleted material that obviously does not pass Wikipedia guidelines.--User:Namiba 13:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I requested the CSD of this article yesterday (declined), basically per this AfD nomination the subject fails GNG and NBASKET JW 1961 Talk 13:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Fails WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not all professional sportspeople are notable. He does not even meet our basketball notability guidelines, these guidelines are also ludicrously broad but that is a different issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was deleted via WP:PROD before, so a speedy delete due to recreation would not apply here.—Bagumba (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was not deleted after a deletion discussion. Recreating after a proposed deletion is no different from contesting the prod. Not opposed to deletion, but imo it's not eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G4, WP:G11 or WP:A7. As the declining admin I'd also note that, in addition to the playing claim, there's a claim to coach British Basketball to be considered (which I didn't mention in the edit summary but did consider in the decline). Espresso Addict (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - apologies if I was unclear in the nom. The article was not speedied as a G4 (or G11, although I don't think anyone is alluding to this being a promotional article), but as per A7, indicating a lack of importance, which is not the same as notability. I was not inferring or attempting to infer, there was an issue with the decline of the speedy, I was simply attempting to provide a Reader's Digest history of the article. In my attempt to make things clearer, I apparently muddied the waters. Onel5969 TT me 02:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all with your nomination statement, Onel5969; my comment (which edit conflicted with Bagumba's) was in response to the repeated calls for speedy deletion above and especially "as the recreation of previously deleted material" (G4) from Namiba. I mentioned G11 because articles on borderline notable subjects that just pass A7 are often deleted G11 instead, and so I had also considered that rationale. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Espresso Addict, cool. I was just concerned because sometimes when you write something, it sounds different in other peoples' heads than it does in yours, so I wanted to make it clear what my intent was. Onel5969 TT me 03:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pramukhan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE Kolma8 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:59, 4 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. Sandstein 13:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore skinhead[edit]

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

Non-notable "scene". At best worth a mention in the skinhead article. Geschichte (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Found several sources in Google Books and added it. But I believe more sources are needed. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH. I am sure that somewhere, perhaps in England or Ohio, there is a music scene where the Venn diagram of Hardcore and skinhead overlap, but it's not notable. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep As per above, current sources shows WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Strong)(very). Intersection of skinheads with punk (and in extension hardcore) has received good coverage on Wikipedia here. Skinheads from a certain era (incl. contemporary trails or retro revivals of a subculture) that listen to hardcore are skinheads not "Hrdcore skinheads". That terms is SYNTH. It's something like calling listeners of Death Metal "Death Metalheads". Sorry but it's silly. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naresh Tikait[edit]

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

Does not appear notable though his father and brother are. Holding a portfolio in an organisation does not bring automatic notability. Vikram Vincent 11:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 11:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 11:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 11:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Innes[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NACTOR. No WP:SIGCOV on his career. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I believe the only significant coverage I could find from a reputable source is the Daily Express reference in the article, which would mean it doesn't pass WP:GNG. This seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON as his most notable role would be in the main cast of The Last Kingdom (TV series), so we could probably restore this article at a later date if we decide then that he passes WP:NACTOR. — BriefEdits (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to note that Daily Express is considered generally unreliable by WP:RSP, and given it's the only source that details his career, it shouldn't be used per WP:GUNREL. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 02:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. I'm not too familiar with the publication so thanks for pointing it out. — BriefEdits (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m mostly a user of Wikipedia and just wanted to mention that I specifically came to search for Timothy Innes’ page because he plays King Edward in season 4 of the last kingdom. I am sure you have good reasons to delete the page but it would be a shame not to have some kind of the information available on this actor. 06:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodydog (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and BriefEdits. Looks like TOOSOON to me as well. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chandana Jayaratne[edit]

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

Lacks WP:ACADEMICS, just received an award from his college. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too quick decision to DELETE. Subject is a scholor of repute in Sri Lanka (not just a recipient of a college award). Article will be improved soon.DilJco (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass GNG nor NPROF.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per above doesn't pass NPROF. Cuoxo (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepEostrix and CommanderWaterford says it doesn't appear to meet wp:NPROF, but on the contrary, if he's the head of the department of physics at the university of colombo (one of Sri Lanka's most prestigious universities), and was president of the the Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science, a notable academic instituition (in Sri Lanka at least), it would appear that the subject meets criteria 6, The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 15:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AfDs [28], for this subject have raised the question of whether or not national academic instituitions in a relatively insignificant country such as Sri Lanka are indeed sufficiently notable to save the article under NPROF 6. I must admit I'm not sure where the community stands on this. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 15:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither head of department nor SLAAS satisfy NPROF C6. C6 applies to posts such a president or chancellor/vice-chancellor at major institutions. --Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source indicates he was the president of the SLAAS, which in my mind is equivalent to a chancellorship/vice-chancellor at a university - is there a reason a president is of a substantially different level of prestige/notability? In the notes for C6, it says president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. - the only problem I see is that the SLAAS might itself not be considered a notable national society, depending on how one sees the scientific community of Sri Lanka. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 15:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 It seems the community has decided that the SLAAS is not a sufficiently notable organization that being head of it is not notable per NPROF C6. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 23:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication that SLAAS is a prestigious organization. No other NPROF criteria are even close to being met. JoelleJay (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being a head of a Department does not satisfy WP:NPROF. Being the head of the SLAAS does not confer automatic notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as others have said, didn't meet WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why are the University of Colombo Sri Lanka and the SLAAS not a "major academic institution or major academic society"? I think more clarity is needed on this for the purposes of this AfD. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furniture UK[edit]

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

Tagged as probably not notable and having poor sources for almost 2 years now. I did a WP:BEFORE search and couldn't find any independent coverage on this company nor its founder Simon Davies. The incredibly generic name does not help at all, though. The references provided are a blog, two promo pieces and the company's own website and I have found no indication online that this can pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahman Jamaal[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about non-notable person, credited with only non-notable music and film works. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CREATIVE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ngabo Medard Jobert[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced promo piece about a non-notable musician, fails WP:GNG / WP:MUSICBIO. Also, so full of unsourced BLP claims, peacockery and either OR and/or COI editing, that even if the subject were notable, the article would need WP:TNT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amestrong Alexandré[edit]

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

Does not look to pass WP:NFOOTBALL as has never played in a competitive match between two teams playing in leagues listed at WP:FPL in the fully professional section of the page nor does he appear to have any full senior caps for Angola. My WP:BEFORE search did not yield any significant coverage of the player nor do any of the three sources used in the article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:42, 4 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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lagu Remix Official[edit]

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

No sources cited. Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 06:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 06:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most 14-year-olds' YouTube channels aren't notable, and this one certainly isn't an exception since there are zero independent sources. Fails the GNG, and it even seems to be an autobiography to boot. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational orientations theory[edit]

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

no evidence for the significance of the theory. Some of the references are untraceable, and Google Scholar and google shows that no publication on this theory has had more than a very small number of references. Some of the people associated with the article are notable -- but that's because of their other work, none of which is very closely related to this.

This was apparently the result of an educational assignment back in 2009. We were just starting such projects then, had had very little in the way of standards to go by. . DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I had originally thought this was possibly content worth preserving, but based on further information from DGG who I consider to be our go-to on all things academic, shift to delete based on the lack of reference to/use of this theory in the academic world. StarM 15:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syngap Research Fund[edit]

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

Highly promotional article on non-notable organization, almost all the content does not belong in an encyclopedia but on their web site. A list of grants made is not encyclopedia content. A list of partner organizations (most of them non-notable ) with no accompanying information aboutthe partnerships, is not encyclopedic content. And almost none of the references are third party. They are either a publication of a supported researcher, or a mere news item about the organization. Shouldn ever have been accepted from Draf. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

0.05[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original reason was: Not a notable number (apart from maybe p value but that's hardly worth mentioning here). Reason still stands. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it says a few lines above that one, These are proposals. Can't see that these proposals have ever gained wide acceptance. —Kusma (t·c) 22:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very little specific information about this number in the article, and the cited references seem offtopic. —Kusma (t·c) 22:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There just isn't much to write about this number, it's not very interesting. The article isn't good as it is and I don't think it will ever become good. How could we ever find a source discussing the number 0.05 specifically? Tercer (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel I need to go full OTHERSTUFF here. 0.01 redirects to a music album. 0.1 is a redirect to a list entry. 0.2 doesn't exist. 0.25 is a disambig with no link for the fraction. 0.33 is a disambig of which the relevant entry links to Fraction. 0.4 doesn't exist. Only 0.5 has an article, sensibly. This mix of disambs, redirects and rap albums seems to persist for evey other fraction I could be bothered to try. - By current usage, we are not entertaining articles on random fractions, very likely because they are liable to be nothing but heaps of trivia. There's no reason to go there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An indiscriminate collection of trivia disguising the fact that there is nothing of depth here. Neither WP:GNG (in-depth coverage in multiple sources of this specific number) nor WP:NNUM ("at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties") are in evidence. We don't even have a separate article on 1/3, much more important as a fraction; why is this one special? And if we're going to have articles on whole-number fractions, we shouldn't use decimal for them, because then more-important ones like 1/3 wouldn't have a good name. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One could write an entire article about the choice of cut-offs for significance in applied statistics, with the number 0.05 playing a prominent role; but I doubt that a proper title for the article would be "0.05", and its content would be completely disjoint from the content current at 0.05. --JBL (talk) 13:19, 9 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. Whether to also create a redirect is an editorial matter, as there's been no discussion of that proposal here. Sandstein 08:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Mellor (actor)[edit]

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

Tagged since 2017. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR which requires significant roles in multiple notable productions. Perhaps best known for a long-running series of TV commercials for a New Zealand bank - but as his character already has a standalone article, I'm not sure the actor merits a standalone biography per WP:NOTINHERIT. Muzilon (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Muzilon (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteDose not have enough notable. Bapinghosh (talk) 4 February 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 08:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYQU[edit]

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

Nothing in the sourcing to indicate it passes WP:BCAST, and searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:08, 4 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 Boney M. discography#Non-international compilation albums. And protect. Sandstein 08:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Baker (album)[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. This venue is a last resort after multiple redirect overwrites. Another common target of WP:LTA/HANOI Jalen Folf (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Boney M. discography and PROTECT against reversion. Death to all articles on useless Boney M. compilations! At their discography article you will find how this band's unscrupulous managers and producers have turned seven studio albums from the 70s-80s into more than 50 barely-different compilations to annoy the band's own fans to death. Several such articles on the compilations have been through this process, as one or two semi-anonymous editors, and a clearly-identified vandal (mentioned by the nominator), insist on preserving them even though the albums are clearly non-notable. This is a really annoying pattern. Redirect and MAKE IT STICK! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Boney M. discography. Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. The require admin approval for recreation. Onel5969 TT me 03:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect and protect to Boney M. discography#Non-international compilation albums, although to be honest I'd prefer the first option as this album has the same name as the much better known single and it's extremely unlikely anyone will search for the album. Fails WP:NALBUM, nothing available online apart from an AllMusic rating with no prose... and as this was only a budget compilation, missing most of the biggest hits, and only ever released in Germany, the chances of finding any more coverage of this album is going to be zero. A redirect without protection will be no use here, given this editor's insistence on reverting at every opportunity. Richard3120 (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect is sufficient to stop the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanoi vandal who has been repeatedly recreating this article. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Boney M. discography. Fails WP:NALBUMS, no significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources (except just AllMusic review). No chartings, certifications or awards. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect and protect per everyone above, but especially per Doomsdayer and Binksternet. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:08, 5 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 Boney M. discography#Non-international compilation albums. And protect. Sandstein 08:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their Most Beautiful Ballads[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. This venue is a last resort after multiple redirect overwrites. Another common target of WP:LTA/HANOI. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Boney M. discography and PROTECT against reversion. Death to all articles on useless Boney M. compilations! At their discography article you will find how this band's unscrupulous managers and producers have turned seven studio albums from the 70s-80s into more than 50 barely-different compilations to annoy the band's own fans to death. Several such articles on the compilations have been through this process, as one or two semi-anonymous editors, and a clearly-identified vandal (mentioned by the nominator), insist on preserving them even though the albums are clearly non-notable. This is a really annoying pattern. Redirect and MAKE IT STICK! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect and protect to Boney M. discography#Non-international compilation albums. Fails WP:NALBUM, being an utterly unremarkable compilation made up almost entirely of album tracks and only a couple of singles. There's nothing out there online apart from an AllMusic rating with no prose. As we have seen with these albums and this editor, just redirecting won't be enough, so it will need to be protected from yet another revert, or simply deleted. Richard3120 (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Boney M. discography. Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 TT me 03:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Ajdani[edit]

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

WP:1E for modeling—the Superbods contest doesn't have a page, and the (encyclopedic) content of this page is essentially accounted for on Mister World Philippines—and WP:ENT for acting—his (IMDB page only lists minor roles in two television dramas. –LogStar100 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –LogStar100 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –LogStar100 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. –LogStar100 (talk) 01:51, 4 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 Danube#Names and etymology. Sandstein 08:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hister[edit]

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

An alternate name for the Danube River, and probably all that's needed on this topic is one or two sentences on that page. The true purpose of this article seems to be coatracking for various debates on whether or not Nostradamus correctly predicted the rise of Adolf Hitler, and should therefore be deleted. Thunderbunny (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not seeing a reason to delete here. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia policy is generally against having two articles for the same thing, as this is confusing, more difficult to maintain, etc. I would say most major geographic features in the world were called something else by somebody else at some point in time. And then there's the implications from the talk page and article history that this article isn't really about it's subject. Thunderbunny (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we have two articles for the same thing then that's a fork which states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article. But merger is not done by deletion – see WP:MAD. The closest reason to delete is "Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)". Merger or redirection would be appropriate in this case and so there's no reason to delete. The only problem is that there's more than one possible target as the topic is naturally covered at both Danube#Names_and_etymology and Nostradamus#Notes. So, the simplest and most sensible choice is just to leave the page as it is and improve it per our policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing a reason to keep here. Article is not about Hister, which is described at Danube#Names_and_etymology, but about a poem that happens to use this word. I'm not seeing where Nostradamus's works are individually analyzed in an encyclopedic way. Reywas92Talk 20:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this WP:COATRACK for Notradamus-cruft. Mangoe (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Danube#Names_and_etymology where, as Reywas92 points out, there is a discussion of Hister. Smartyllama (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Wrong venue. The nominator (oddly) nominated this redirect at RfD before self-reverting. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annam Tower[edit]

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

This is not even a thing. Seems to be a misspelling of Amman. Greenknight dv (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest procedural close as wrong venue. Listed page is a redirect, not an article, and should go to WP:RFD. --Finngall talk 02:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chavay[edit]

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

I can find no reliable sources to add Chavay, Ecuador or Lake Chavay to an existing article. Perhaps redirect to Chavay Kuy? Leschnei (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to facilitate uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This could even be a speedy delete, since only one of the links actually has a page, thus defeating the purpose of a disambiguation page. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:22, 8 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 Jimmy DiResta. Sandstein 08:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gurglin Gutz[edit]

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

Prodded with "he 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.". Prod removed w/out ratinale. I am not seeing any reliable discussion out there, few mentions in passing, the best is this short passage from the toy creator: [29]. This is a bit longer but of dubious reliability. Non-notable toy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's easy to find coverage in the Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Encyclopedia of Major Marketing Campaigns, &c. Our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew Davidson, Chicago Tribune is a short paragraph of tongue-in-cheek advertising. NYT is not even coverage, it's a passing mention in a single sentence. Ditto for the cited Encyclopedia. WP:GOOGLEHITS are not anywhere close to what GNG requires, which in in-depth (non-trivial) coverage - and what you found is trivial (for CT) and then not even coverage for the two other examples... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources are fine. The NYT, for example, provides good background about the inventor and the toy line's origin as a found object. The encyclopedia has an entry for the topic and so is clear evidence that the topic is encyclopedic. The contrary gurgling is not persuasive. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current sources passes WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jimmy DiResta, where it is already mentioned in the lead as one of his inventions. That is about all that the found sources could possibly support at this point - the NYT blurb and Encyclopedia of Major Marketing Campaigns cited above basically can not even count as coverage for this product due to how little they are actually mentioned in them. Searching for further sources turns up basically nothing in reliable sources that gives more than a passing mention of the product that does nothing but establishes that it existed. Even the creators own book barely talks about it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jimmy DiResta. Zero sources with more than a brief mention/marketing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CreativeLive[edit]

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

Promotional and non-notable. It would do very well as a web page for the organization. The Overview half is a product catalog. The History half is a list of funding, and a repetition of their promotional efforts.; the references, as expected, are pure promotion and advertising. --some are even in places like Newswire, which isa dedicate PR site. Some are interviews designed for the founders to say how good their project is. Most are mere notices. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreativeLive. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to New Castle County, Delaware. Sandstein 08:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Castle County Council[edit]

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

Fails GNG. We rarely have county legislatures, unless they are of really notable counties like LA County. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:14, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_February_4&oldid=1007072582"