Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 12	March 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Southern European Americans[edit]

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

Including also within the nomination:

Southern European Canadians
Southern European Australians
Southern Europeans in the United Kingdom

As with other articles created by this user, these articles are original synthesis proclaiming without substantiation that the groups have been recognised as "distinct cultural and pan-ethnic group" and REFBOMBED with articles that use the phrase "southern european", regardless of context. "Southern European" is not an official demographic in any of these countries and the topic is better covered in the specific ethnicity articles that make up the synthesised concept of "Southern European". Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as WP:SYNTH, per the AfD outcome at this discussion. Mccapra (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with the first, these are both original research and largely pointless, not giving the reader any real information. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. Alex-h (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Walton (musician)[edit]

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

I imagine that someone could cobble a kind of career together out of database entries that list albums and CDs, but as far as secondary sources go, I see no notability for this person. Again, a hard worker might find a review of a show here and there, but that's not notability. Plus, it's a COI piece, with a history of heavy promotion (I just removed all the spam links). Drmies (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not seeing sources, either. Came across this today, a long term vanity entry, tended by the subject. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure here is the right place for a response, but here goes... No malicious intent here. I didn't write the original article nor do I know who did and I sure as heck didn't know anything about any SPAM links. All I've been trying to do is fix the inaccuracies. But every time I do, I get my fingers slapped in one way or another. I'm not sure what secondary sources are. All I have is old videos, pictures and newspaper snippets which, if I had any savvy, I could digitize and post somewhere. I guess. Most of my career occurred before it was trendy to plaster everything on the Internet, but if I can find the Billboard charts, I'm sure someone else can too. Look, the wiki page has been up for quite a while, and while prestigious, it's just another web page to me and an inaccurate one at that. I'd rather you guys just take take it down then have to endure any further insinuations or accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwalton64 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Bwalton64, thank you for stopping by. The spamlinks I was referring to were the External links, where every single social media account was linked, and the links in the album titles, which went directly to online record sellers--a link on your talk page explaining that was already placed there in 2014. Please follow the guidelines in WP:DISCLOSE. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously do not know what I'm doing. I deleted everything for which there is no digitized proof of and added my ASCAP membership ID as a verifiable secondary source. A professional ghostwriter will digitize my archives and maintain the article going forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwalton64 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bwalton64, It's understood that a lot of pre-internet journalism is hard to retrieve, but if you possess multiple print articles about you or that mention you prominently, they would be valuable as sources and to confirm WP:NOTABILITY. Feel free to share them here. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Primary sources are such things as emails, blogs, letters, and membership cards. Secondary sources are articles in magazines and books. If there is any proof of touring, please provide as complete citations as possible (example: Files, Troy, "Bands Rock the NM State Fair", Albuquerque Journal, March 4, 1998, p. 17). Thank you. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ambrose (conductor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTRESUME, WP:GNG, and WP:MUSICBIO. This is a resume, which would have been excused in 2006, but in 2021, everyone knows we are not LinkedIn. There's no indication of either general notability nor of specific notability as a conductor. Compare David Alan Miller and Itzhak Pearlman with this page. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This resume on a musician should not have lasted so long on WP; it fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Kbabej (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael James (cricketer, born 1987)[edit]

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

Played a single match, not worthy of biography as he never intended to become a professional cricketer. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I wrote this article, and had doubts about its worthiness at the time, and still have them. Whatever consensus is reached is fine by me. Sammyrice (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players Has played 1 FC match, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, they are redirected/deleted. Also just because he didn't intend to become a professional cricketer isn't a valid reason for deletion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all notability guidelines including WP:GNG; even fails the extremely permissive NCRIC since he has not played at the highest level. No significant coverage, only massing mentions and database entries. Redirect would serve little purpose due to the disambiguation. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players I'm pretty inclusionist, but even I struggle with a player who played once for Cambridge, and neither scored a run nor took a wicket. In the absence of that type of redirection, delete. Most of the article is about a later career which isn't notable for Wikipedia's purposes. DevaCat1 (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players - subject does not pass WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Thunderbird Entertainment. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird Releasing[edit]

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

Notability tag on the article since 2014. -- Beland (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An article with a history of editing by connected contributor accounts and IPs. The given references are routine and inadequate for WP:CORPDEPTH. The company appears to have been involved in distributing a number of notable films, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. There is some coverage such as this, which, though it may be more about Eve Gabereau than the company, might provide the basis for an article, though I am unconvinced that is sufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thunderbird Entertainment as WP:ATD. Topic fails NCORP on its own merits. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per HighKing my search did not find anything to meet WP:NCORP, nothing in the article suggests it would meet WP:NCORP either. Jeepday (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquium ¹[edit]

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

Unnotable album. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to scroll through most of Soul Crusher's creations, and I was very surprised to see that most of them seem notable (although I haven't taken a deeper look, it might be that they just look notable at the first glance). There are too many of these articles tho', so I wouldn't bother. This album, however, is not notable. The sourcing is just the same old stuff he used in previous non-notable compilation albums: blank Allmusic pages, the album booklet, discogs and unreliable looking sites like Sonic Boom and Aiding and Abetting. Google search did not return any reliable sources either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as previous. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravencoin[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.

The best source in the article currently is Business Insider which is just an interview where Patrick Byrne says why he likes Ravencoin. The others are primary sources, blog / medium posts, and Cointelegraph.

The best source I could find was Utah Business Magazine. Coin (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added three new references to the Ravencoin article in response to this discussion. Forbes, Utah Business (thanks for the find, Coin), and Bloomberg. My hope is that these are credible enough to support the existence of this article. Mozmac (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is from a "contributor" not a staff writer so it isn't considered a reliable source, see WP:FORBESCON.

And Bloomberg is actually a press release from tZERO. Coin (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search does not return anything that meets WP:NCORP I find a couple of minor mentions in secondary sources. As coin points out primary sources do not support notability. Jeepday (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability , and nobody has found better refeeces. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Michelle McManus#2007–09: Dancing to a Different Beat. Both participants suggested the redirect based on existing coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice for page protection, which can be requested at WP:RFPP. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing to a Different Beat[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. First and foremost, this album doesn't exist – it was never released, so there are no articles about its release, no critical reviews, and no chart placements. The sources in the article are two WP:PRIMARY promotional interviews with the artist in local newspapers ahead of concerts she played in the towns, a fan forum discussing her appearance on a TV show performing one song (not the album) and a link to a video of the performance, and a press release from her management. So not a single independent reliable source among them. The only things you can really say about this album is that a single was released ahead of the album, but the record was ultimately scrapped and never released – and that information is already in Michelle McManus#2007–09: Dancing to a Different Beat, which is where I redirected the article to. However, an IP has reverted the redirect without explanation, so I'm bringing it to AfD for further discussion. Richard3120 (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Michelle McManus#2007–09: Dancing to a Different Beat: Barely found anything about the unreleased album. The page should be protected as well. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lust for Life (Iggy Pop album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some Weird Sin[edit]

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

A non-notable track from Iggy Pop's 1977 album Lust for Life. Currently has no sources used and the sources I have that discuss this song only talk about it for a few paragraphs. Believe it should be redirected. – zmbro _(talk) 19:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm-- some sources give it some coverage, i.e .[1], [2], [3]. Not really seeing enough to justify a stand alone article, so leaning towards redirect to Lust for Life (Iggy Pop album) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. – zmbro _(talk) 04:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lust for Life (Iggy Pop album) per above - no indication of notability. No prejudice against recreating the article if and when significant independent coverage can be properly established. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Physalis (software)[edit]

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

Couldn't find any independent references to this software, searching only turns up Wikipedia mirrors. Even the github repo it links to only has 3 stars. the wub "?!" 18:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. the wub "?!" 18:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found nothing on a search Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Eddie891. Somehow this article has existed for 16 years; there's nothing there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I had a look at the google results, saw a few bits, but nothing in depth or helpful. Govvy (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mind of Mine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She (Zayn song)[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it shows a lack of notability per WP:NSONGS. Its coverage comes from only album reviews. Some very low chart entries. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mind of Mine--Cracking onto the top 100 of five charts is not very low, I think. Regardless, it does not mean that this song has received notable coverage on its own. Per NSONGS, since there is not enough material for a detailed article, this should be redirected to the article of the album. HĐ (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mind of Mine - Even the barely-two lines of content that are in this article come from album reviews.--N Ø 14:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mind of Mine per nom. Coverage not outside album reviews, and nothing significant as MaranoFan points out; any discussion about the song can be easily covered under the album article so there is no need for a standalone article. --Ashley yoursmile! 19:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mind of Mine as per nom. Citterz (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Hinnekens[edit]

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

Brought up at BLPN.[4] Doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Review of Google News, Books, and Scholar do not reveal much for the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not automatically notable just for being members of the organizational boards of political organizations, nor for being policy advisors to political parties — this could get him in the door if he were reliably sourceable to enough media coverage about his work in the roles to pass WP:GNG, but is not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees him an article just because his existence is technically verifiable in content self-published by his own employers (which is what all three of the footnotes here are). Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Mid-level party functionary. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I cannot close as a merge as the content is unsourced. Happy to provide the content to someone if they wish to source it before merging. Daniel (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Osmosis (group)[edit]

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

A possibly non-notable band. Not much source found about the band and much of the information on the website seems to be original research. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively Merge The first section of the article to University of Southern California or one of it's apparently many sub pages. I think that would be a good alternative to straight deletion. Since it looks like they have a lot of records and a little notoriety, just not enough to warrant an article by Wikipedia's standards. That said, maybe someone could argue that a merge isn't a good option because of the current length of the University of Southern California article. To which I say, does it really need things like an individual picture for every single Notable USC alumni or four paragraphs about the marching band? Likely not. Especially if it comes at the cost of mentioning a band in the article that has multiple album releases and a documentary about them. Can that be said about the marching band? I think not. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like more input into Adamant1's suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I might not have been very creative with my searching, but I found nothing to suggest the group has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, a merger feels as though it will be undue and a circumnavigation of deletion which is imo the proper outcome. I could similarly find no independent/reliable coverage of the 'documentary' about the group other than a press release from the seemingly non-notable Delray Film Festival. Given the complete absence of WP:SIGCOV, oppose merger. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bestune T55[edit]

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

This truck apparently exists but is otherwise unremarkable. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. This is one of a series of questionably sourced articles about Chinese automobiles created by the same editor. Mo Billings (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Mo Billings (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mo Billings: How does it not meet notability? The truck does exist, and many sources say so. If you read all of the sources I have listed, you will find that they support eachother. DestinationFearFan (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 卢笙, ed. (2021-02-01). "一汽奔腾T55将3月初预售 3月底正式上市" (in Chinese). China Central Television. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
2. 庞硕 (2021-02-25). "率先推1.5T车型奔腾T55将于3月底上市". Eastmoney.com (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
3. 郑谊 (2021-02-02). "奔腾T55实车曝光，颜值挺高，奔腾找对方向了" (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
4. "奔腾新SUV T55到店实拍 3月将上市预计8万元起售" (in Chinese). zh:青岛新闻. 2021-02-22. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
5. "奔腾T55实车曝光，定位紧凑型SUV，今年一季度上市" (in Chinese). TOM Online. 2021-01-12. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bestune T55 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The best I can do (as someone who cannot read the language) to evaluate the sources provided above, on the page, and from searching the name of the vehicle is to machine translate them, skim them, and check that the source is a reliable enough source on this topic and that the article does not appear to be paid coverage of some form. To me it looks like there are multiple sources passing all those conditions, those sources just happen to not be in English. That constitutes a pass of WP:GNG. I would change my mind if someone with relevant language ability can explain that the coverage is somehow not independent, but on my own I can find no reason to think that. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gehad Hamdy[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Can't find any in-depth coverage of this individual. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is no where near sufficient to show that this activist is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable sources use her photojournalism, see edits to article. Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly. Found no coverage to meet WP:GNG. It's great that her photos are used in reliable sources, but that is not significant independent coverage of her, and it isn't to the extent that there's a credible claim to WP:NCREATIVE. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Moonlight Orchestra[edit]

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

Another article created by an WP:SPA; I can find no evidence that this band passes WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. The only reference that I can find about the band is this Q&A on a blog, which is definitely not WP:RS. The references in the article are rubbish; the EADT piece doesn't even mention this band once!! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, my search essentially confirmed the nom's, some passing mentions but nothing indicative of notability Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Love the name of this band, but couldn't find anything that establishes notability. The article was tagged for notability back in 2010, but Mrdjangola removed it without any explanation. He had multiple edits, but as I have seen, most of them revolve around the people / record label connected to this band, so COI definitely applies. There is an article on one of their albums as well, I think that deserves an Afd too. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Headed Hip Hop[edit]

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

Another album created by an WP:SPA that doesn't meet any of the criteria under WP:NALBUM. I can't find any reliable sources to support the claim that this was released by Universal. The only 'source' I can find is this website which has 2 snippets of 'reviews' from news sources that don't appear to exist. It then tells us that we can find out more about the album on its Wikipedia page, which is a bit of a red flag in my opinion. It looks like a case of using Wikipedia as a platform for promotion of a non-notable album. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:XY. Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)'[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Given that I have just closed the AfD for The Moonlight Orchestra article as delete, this can't be redirected there, so delete it is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Traipsing Bloom[edit]

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

Fails all 7 criteria of WP:NALBUM; no evidence of any awards or charting. The two 'independent reviews' cited are a blog post on the website of another record label and a user review on a cannabis website, both not WP:RS. The other two sources cited are the band's own record label and someone's Blogspot. My WP:BEFORE search only yielded self-published material like Spotify, Bandcamp, Soundcloud, Amazon etc. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Moonlight Orchestra: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the The Moonlight Orchestra is also up for deletion so redirecting would effectively delete the article unless anyone can find any evidence that either the album or the band are notable. Nothing has come forward as of yet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cabayi (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of publishing companies of Ukraine[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. The entries with articles could perhaps be put in a relevant category such as Category:Publishing companies of Ukraine. ... discospinster _talk 17:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guideline WP:CLN explains that we don't delete lists to favour categories. The fact that we have the Category:Publishing companies of Ukraine is a reason to keep the equivalent list, not a reason to delete it. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are only a handful of articles in this list and there is no norm in listing publishing companies by country. Also there is a waft of external links although that can be easily removed anytime. Ajf773 (talk) 07:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a norm of listing and categorizing companies by type and country. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was requested as part of the Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month event and is based on the corresponding article in Ukrainian (albeit with some cleanup). Similar pages like List of publishing companies of Albania and List of publishing companies of Estonia exist. I'm not familiar enough with WP:NOTDIR to form a strong argument on this, but it doesn't seem like this article would fall under any of the mentioned criteria per se, while WP:CSC's second criterion seems to justify this article's existence. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 17:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But retain only notable names. Santosh L (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there is a lot of completely unsourced content here, a TNT deletion (or ideally a redirect to "Culture of Ukraine" or something) might be needed. The general concept of the page seems fine, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN, completely standard indexing list; whether any nonnotable companies should be included is not a matter for AFD to resolve here. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Fish Bowl[edit]

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

I can't find any reviews or significant coverage or analysis of this film. No evidence of meeting any of the criteria of WP:NFILM or even WP:GNG. I can't even find evidence that it was ever released... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not reliable sources which can make this film meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Grailcombs (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable independent sources that discuss the film non-trivially. Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NFILMS. --Ashley yoursmile! 19:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The movie has not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject so that it does not meet requirements for WP:GNG and WP:NFILMS --Kemalcan (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with all above - there is no sign of notability. Dunarc (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Per nom. Pretty straight forward. Doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor WP:GNG with the sources provided. Redoryxx (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Antique Records[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; I couldn't find any independent sources showing any coverage (let alone significant coverage). The 'releases' by this record label are nothing more than just remixes of songs that you can download off their website. Not one of the more important indie labels, fails WP:NMUSIC.

This article has lasted 10 years but has zero notability. The label doesn't even have a Discogs page, which I didn't even think was possible! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator's assesment. Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Citterz (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any independent sources on this, much less any with in-depth information. Non-notable from an arts/culture standpoint, non-notable from a business standpoint, fails GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Hynes[edit]

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

Another councillor (so not passing WP:POLITICIAN) where a few interesting things exist to say about them, but not sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find a significant coverage of any find on him, so obviously not notable enough for an article. ww2censor (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, county councillors are not automatically notable just because they exist. The notability bar for a politician at the local levels of office is not "he exists as a political officeholder", but "he can be extremely well-sourced as being a political officeholder of much more than just local significance". But the only "reference" here is a book self-published by his own county's local historical society, and even it's just sitting there as a contextless list item without being used to actually footnote any of the actual body content for the purposes of verifying how much it does or doesn't actually say about Pat Hynes. Just because he gets mentioned in a book is not automatically enough per se, if we're unable to verify the extent to which he is or isn't a key subject of said book. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Citterz (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - equivalent to a county executive, he is of unclear notability. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satyajeet Tambe Patil[edit]

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

A piece of promotional artilce for a non notable politician who fails WP:GNG. This article is created by Speedy King, who is blocked for sockpuppetry. Most of the articles created by this blocked user has been deleted. Currently, Im on a mission to remove all such articles written only for promotional purpose Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the non-notable leader of a youth congress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two first sources in the article establish his notability, and there is a lot of hits for his name on google news [5]. Mottezen (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first two sources do not establish his notability. The first one is about the person being elected as the state president of the youth wing of a party described in 4 sentences. The second one is not about this person;it is about something else within the party and merely mentions his name. This is a clear case of failure of WP:GNG.ThanksPoppified ^talk 07:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 16:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Youth leaders are almost never notable. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, clear COI in creation. --RaviC (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus to redirect. Daniel (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic cascading style sheets[edit]

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

This term is obsolete; this term is not (and probably never was) notable; article has no sources and reads more like a guide Anton.bersh (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main CSS article. Oaktree b (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to add to the original proposal): This article might be a copyright violation. The whole "Example with PHP" section is a copy-paste from this guide in Dutch with comments removed:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100819062059/http://www.jori-koolstra.nl/DCSS/dcss.txt

Also, I encourage commenters to look at the first deletion discussion. It highlights some other problems with the article (which I did my best to fix). The first discussion was closed after a single "Keep" vote by User:SpinningSpark because "It [DCSS] may be a dumb idea, but it is found in the literature". I disagree with this logic because:

1. The mere fact that some word combination was committed to paper does not imply it is notable. For example, there are entire books about PHP6 but PHP6 (a language interpreter for which was never released) does not have a dedicated page.

2. PHP (or any other language) can produce text strings and return them as files, so you can "create" meaningless names like Dynamic XML, dynamic XLS, etc.

Anton.bersh (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 16:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a noteworthy topic, a term from a time when everything was described as dynamic. The last AfD pointed to some sources but only this one is about server side customization of CSS, the rest are about altering CSS client side (which this article is not about, not that it's noteworthy either). As Anton.bersh mentions, not every technology combination that's mentioned in literature is noteworthy. I don't think this should be a redirect to the main CSS page as this term wouldn't be mentioned on the main page. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepthi Nambiar[edit]

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

Non notable actress. The only working ref about her from a reliable source in the article [6] mentions that her role was minuscule. Searching does not provide any better sources and therefore fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 16:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agastya Jaiswal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABLE. Passing an exam doesn't make you notable. Sources are Indian newspapers and media apparently responding to press releases by family. And WP definition of child prodigy is "a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert". No evidence of this. Subject is aged 14. Smerus (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just getting a college degree extremely young is not in and of itself a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:GNG. I don't see what's notable; many teenagers, including myself, have gone to college. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Dobson (American musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. I have been unable to find any significant coverage or to substantiate any of the claims of notability made in the article, such as the awards mentioned. Apart from that, the article is blatantly promotional and unsourced, and has not seen any improvement in more than a decade. Lennart97 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. First off, Bronx Community College is notoriously underfunded, and invites almost anyone to perform there; before the pandemic, it had literally hundreds of shows a year, many of them free or for outside charities. Performing at the Blue Note is evidence of some notability, but that by itself is not definitive. To pass WP:MUSICBIO, we require evidence of a tour or at least multiple gigs across a wide area. I don't see that. She has a bit over 2,000 followers on Twitter, and 523 likes on Facebook. Please help rescue this by adding more evidence of notability, and ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - First, be suspicious when a Wikipedia article constantly refers to the person by their first name. Objective writers don't do that. Anyway, I concur with Bearian above that Ms. Dobson has gotten some notice. She has credits backing up some famous people in the studio, but that runs afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED if those sessions never generated coverage specifically about her. For her own work, she has no reliable album reviews, and little beyond basic gig announcements. I tried to confirm some of the article's big pronoucements that are tagged "citation needed", and found that many different websites seem to copy each other on her achievements and awards, but true original confirmation is elusive. Alas, she is a nearly-notable behind-the-scenes journeywoman, but there's just not quite enough to work with for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to SMP (computer algebra system). There is a consensus that the subject is notable based on coverage in independent sources and that the article should be moved to the new title as its common name. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolic Manipulation Program[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google Scholar citations to SMP paper -- 33 results)

(Find sources:Google Book search with additional terms >50 mentions of SMP)

No independent sourcing is present in the article. My WP:BEFORE searches indicate that there is one independent source available [7], but it's not clear to me that it's a WP:RS and it has limited content of encyclopedic value. The page has also been subject to promotional editing by presumably paid editors (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Badtoothfairy). My prod was reverted with the edit summary "Certainly notable as predecessor to Mathematica"; however, "being a predecessor to something notable" is not part of WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Since the whole article is only one paragraph long (plus a bit of pointless Wolfram name-checking added by socks), I would be happy if this discussion ended either with the article being deleted or being merged into the article Mathematica. JBL (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~Delete~~ per the nomination and the fact that it's basically squatting on a title that could refer to computer algebra software more broadly. For example, one of the first Google hits is a paper that mentions translating these problems into a form suitable for symbolic manipulation programs. Another is a technical abstract that refers to The potential role of symbolic manipulation programs. Yet another is a paper whose title refers to REDUCE as a symbolic manipulation program. XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to SMP (computer algebra system), as suggested below. Seems to be a WP:HEYMANN example now. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources Thanks for recognizing the improvements to the article. But I suspect that one reason you originally suggested deleting it was an over-reliance on the automatic "Find sources" links, which are pretty much useless in this case, for two reasons: 1) symbolic, manipulation, and program are pretty common generic words for the topic of computer algebra; 2) the most common name for the system was SMP, not Symbolic Manipulation Program (that is I guess my fault -- I chose that title when I created the article because SMP by itself has too many meanings).

I wonder if there's a way we can improve the "find sources" links in cases like this. I added a few links under the deletion banner, but that's pretty ugly and probably not kosher. Ideas? --Macrakis (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's always possible to add extra "find sources" links to the AfD. I've done that a few times in similar circumstances in the past, like when a person was known by other names than the article title, and it seems appropriate here as well. Perhaps three instances of {{Find sources AFD}} will be better than one. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer! --Macrakis (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP A quick literature search finds large numbers of independent sources, both on Google Scholar and the Internet Archive's book search. It is mostly called by its short name SMP, which means that you need to search with other related terms (e.g. Macsyma or "symbolic algebra") to find it. SMP was an important system in the 1980s, as shown by the large number of sources in mathematics teaching etc. as well as sources on computer algebra technology. It is typically mentioned along with other major systems of the time, namely Macsyma, Maple, Scratchpad, etc. I have added a couple of sources showing this.

Though it was superseded by Mathematica, it was not actually an early version of Mathematica, so does not belong in the Mathematica article. The language in the current article saying "SMP was essentially Version Zero of the more ambitious Mathematica system." is not quite right. Yes, Wolfram learned a lot from SMP in developing Mathematica, but it was not literally version zero of Mathematica.

Documenting the history of computer science is as important as documenting currently available software. It is a form of Wikipedia:Presentism to treat past achievements as first drafts of later developments.

It seems unlikely that anyone is being paid to edit a page about a system that was obsolete 25+ years ago. But even if they are, that is not relevant to the notability of this page.

By the way, I have never had anything to do with SMP. On the other hand, I worked on Macsyma, which was a competitor of SMP. I am surprised that whatever sources you're depending on for the history of symbolic algebra systems don't mention SMP. --Macrakis (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you are not a paid editor! But User:Floridada is. --JBL (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Floridada's only contribution to this article seems to me to be useful and constructive, and it's just an added reference! I don't know anything about their behavior in general. But in any case, even if Floridada is paid, and even if their contribution had been unconstructive, that says nothing at all about the value and notability of the article. --Macrakis (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their behavior in general consisted of spamming references to Wolfram's writings (published and not) across many Wikipedia articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending their behavior. Just saying that it is irrelevant to the notability of this article. --Macrakis (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re the name, it would probably make sense to move it to SMP (symbolic algebra system), since SMP is its common name. But it's not fair to say that it's "squatting" on the page. Symbolic Manipulation Program is in fact its name. --Macrakis (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS I would be surprised to find any book or article comparing computer algebra systems in the relevant period (roughly 1982-1990) that doesn't mention SMP. --Macrakis (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I didn't find so many secondary sources, but there are some; it does seem to have been notable during its time. I agree with User:Macrakis that something like SMP (symbolic algebra system) would be a better title. Ebony Jackson (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple citation search of the basic paper about SMP finds 33 results.

This Google Book search [8] finds well over 50 mentions of SMP along with Macsyma and Scratchpad (a convenient way to restrict to relevant results).

How many secondary sources do we need? --Macrakis (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to SMP (computer algebra system). I'm seeing a fair bit of coverage as a significant predecessor to Mathematica. It is more difficult to find online sources for something of this age, and we should take that into account. (For example, it looks like a 1989 article in the Economist mentions it, although I could only find a sketchy Google books reference to it [9]) I agree that the article should be renamed. The name should be similar to other articles on related subjects, such as Macaulay computer algebra system and GAP (computer algebra system). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The delete !votes have a basis in policy which the keep !votes (cast by the author, an SPA, and a gamer of ACPERM) lack. Cabayi (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Medical Students' Association International[edit]

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

I can't find enough in-depth, reliable, independent sources to indicate that this organization meets the strict notability guidelines for companies and organizations. I'm also concerned about the close paraphrasing of the official website's content (it's changed just enough that I don't think it would be eligible for WP:G12). Jmertel23 (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've blanked the page and listed it at WP:CP because of the foundational copyright violations; a previous version of this, Draft:Asian Medical Students' Association International, is also listed there for the same reason. I agree with Jmertel23, it probably does not qualify for G12. There's an obvious but undisclosed WP:COI here, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not COI as marking my article again and again doesn't make me a person of COI. I have already asked the author to release the work as i have permission from author as well for this. i have mentioned this thing in talk page about OTRS. I can even provide you ticket number from author as well. Jmertel123 Justlettersandnumbers

Keep, I have got permission to use the text and all other stuffs as stated in Talk page of the Article. The OTRS Agent has permitted it under the mentioned ticket number so It qualifies WP:G12. And about the notability of Organisation so I have added the sources and references from even the moat reputed journals of the time i.e The Lancet etc. Kindly view this and make my article eligible for Wikipedia. I hereby request you to consider my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamarvirJain (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SamarvirJain, what makes you a "person of COI" is that you have an obvious connection to this organisation, but have not made any disclosure of that connection. If you are paid by the organisation, paid-editor disclosure is obligatory under our terms of use. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NCORP. No verifiable hit on GBooks, one passing mention (this article) on Scholar, nothing on JSTOR. The article as it stands is substantially copied from the website of the thing (now with OTRS permission) and sourced to that website, which is not an independent reliable source. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Asian Medical Students' Association International is also known as "Asian Medical Students Association" only. So when you are looking for notability of Organisation try searching for "Asian Medical Students Association" only. It Comprises various organisations such "Asian Medical Students' Association Nepal","Asian Medical Students' Association India", "Asian Medical Students' Association Indonesia", "Asian Medical Students' Association Philippines" etc. so when looking for notability searches try looking for these. You will find lots of lots of stuffs related to it.--SamarvirJain (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It is a notable organisation as when i searched for just "ASIAN MEDICAL STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION", I find out the organisation is also known as AMSA INTERNATIONAL as well as 'Asian Medical Students' Association'. I don't think only quote searching "ASIAN MEDICAL STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL" will decide whether it is notable or not. Meanwhile, i have added more sources to this. Samneet Arora (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have found very reputed sources for this article, i don't think it should be deleted. I think it if we search "Asian Medical Students' Association" we can find so many news and scholar articles for this article. According to me it clarifies notifiable thing. Also i have got sources and references from yearbook and other books which i have added here in the Article. I am also able to find sources such as UIA. Also this organisation has various chapters under it like "Asian Medical Students' Association India", "Asian Medical Students' Association Indonesia", I think it may also be considered. Outlawdropbear1999 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige (studio)[edit]

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

Non-notable ROTM pornography production company, with primary sources only supporting it. No encyclopaedic content to salvage. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is a lack of substantial secondary coverage in multiple reliable sources which is directly about the company so that WP:CORPDEPTH is not passed at this time, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and A-306 rationale. Kolma8 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Rogermx (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Wallace (rapper)[edit]

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

non-notable rapper, received only minor local coverage which is mostly an interview. The claim of tens of millions of views is also directly contradicted by the single independent source. There is no meaningful coverage of Wallace and once I removed the massive BLP vio, we're left with two sentences that don't support his being notable. CUPIDICAE💕 14:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searching yields low quality and irrelevant results. Fails wp:basic. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 14:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources to make this rapper qualify for GNG and BASIC. Grailcombs (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no touring, only a local rapper, lack of significant coverage, and thus fails WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per a BEFORE, very few RS that contribute toward WP:MUSICBIO or GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bala Golf Club[edit]

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill. Short. 10 holes. Founded 1928. Not to be confused with the American club of the same name. Nigej (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage and no indication of anything that would suggest notability; WP:MILL golf facility, fails WP:GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage to make this pass for WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nigej. Fails my standards for golf courses, although at 10 holes and older than 1960, it's marginal. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brighter Kashmir[edit]

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

i fail to see how this paper is notable, it's received no coverage nor is it widely cited. CUPIDICAE💕 13:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG there are no claims of notability in the article, and I my search does not find anything to add. Jeepday (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. or use for part of new article. if this were the major newspaper of a major city, we should include the article on it. It's an important part of the structure of WP to be very inclusive for potential information sources. But it looks from our other articles that it's not -- the major one appears to be Kashmir Times at least based on circulation. Perhaps we need an article on Newspapers in Kashmir? DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)`[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katharina Leiding[edit]

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

A footballer with a very brief career and no appearances that qualify under WP:NFOOTBALL (youth caps don't confer notability). I did a search focused on German sources; the best sources that came up were a very brief injury announcement, a passing mention and a routine under-20 article. RevierSport has the best coverage as they have a surgery announcement and a brief Q&A, the latter piece not having a declared author. On balance, I don't think WP:GNG is met here as the Q&A is the only source that isn't completely trivial and we don't consider every youth player that had a Q&A in some place to be notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources and his sports achievements doesn't qualify for WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Grailcombs (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bullet Project[edit]

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

Dead project. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks enough sourcing to establish why this attempted project was notable.TH1980 (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wow, multiple issues. No IRS coverage discovered via Google or the ProQuest database of Australian and NZ newspaper articles (broader and deeper than Google): fails GNG. In addition, the article is at least WP:TOOSOON as it has not progressed past concept stage in 2011. Further, the article was created by a SPA with an apparent COI. I wanted to save this page for it's interest but try as I did, I cannot. Delete. Cabrils (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. A7V2 (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A11 —Kusma (t·c) 20:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Selfie[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources discussing this topic. Fails not only WP:GNG but also WP:V potentially. I would oppose a merge or redirect unless someone can present reliable sources to support this topic. Searching up many of these terms in conjunction with 'selfie' brings up zero results. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V, WP:RS as well as WP:AD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperwave11 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sékou Fadiga[edit]

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

Doesn't fit the notability guidelines setout for a football player as defined in |WP:NSOCCER Hyperwave11 (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - made 44 appearances in the Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 per this (the only source in the article), showing he meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way. Nominator has clearly not done WP:BEFORE. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL according to Football Database. Some of these appearances are supported by Soccerway also. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Banstali[edit]

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

Non-notable location Hyperwave11 (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC) It does not meet notability guidelines, as no relevant sources can be found citing its notability, instead just results for plane tickets and weather.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V. It would nice to know this supposed settlement's name in the Bengali language....anyone?----Pontificalibus 11:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? I agree with Pontificialbus, couldn't find any sources about the subject but maybe something its the native name could help. - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 16:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V. I get a pretty bad sinking feeling reading this because I get the impression this may have been a common issue with this editor's mass-created articles, and they're the most prolific article-creator on Wiki. I've added a health-warning to that particular rankings list as I think some editors were just mass-creating stubs in order to rank higher on it. FOARP (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also: note the use of an absolutely massive infobox template with lots of fields (only a few of which are filled in) to make this 15-words-of-prose article more than 5kb in size. I mean, I WP:AGF but this looks like trying to make a micro-stub look bigger than it really is. FOARP (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant find any citation or verification source to know it is a real place.Shahram 18:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we've got another case of someone producing cookie-cutter location micro-stubs in order to bulk out their article-creation stats here. I just searched "is a village in Chandpur district in the Chittagong division" and got 66 hits, all of them sourced only to GeoNames (an unreliable source), all of them by Encyclopaedus, all created in the same stub-creation session in July 2008. All except three of them 25-29 words in length according to the search stats. Every one of these 63 articles is a WP:V fail at present since they simply say "X is a village in Chandpur district in the Chittagong division" with no information that will allow you to actually identify where/what they are. Of the remaining three, one has a disambiguation notice at the top and is otherwise the same as the 63 I just described. Of the two that aren't the same, neither has an additional reference but they do provide some additional information that might help you know where they are (famous local people in one, local mosques in the other). TL;DR probably we should delete all the "village" stubs in the above search except Mustafapur and Aingiri.
Comment Editors who've been around awhile may remember article creator Encyclopædius as Dr. Blofeld. They created many, many settlement articles in good faith using an automated script. As I recall, they got through the As, Bs, and were well into the Cs before the community stopped them. Later in their career they expressed distaste for generic stubs of the form "xxx is a village". I believe, although I can't find the post, that they also admitted a measure of regret at having created so many, and tried to delete some, but were overruled on the grounds that Wikipedia is a gazetteer.

If you use https://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz/ to search Bangladesh for names beginning with Banstali, you'll get three results, one of which is located at 23.201394, 90.719608, as described in the article. So I have to disagree with participants who say it's unverifiable. Whether a better source, multiple sources, or sources with a greater depth of coverage, should be required is a different question. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce - Many thanks for this insightful contribution. This certainly illuminates better what was going on. I would make the following comments:

What can be created by a script may (with more work, and where there has been no further content added) be deleted with a script.
G7 provides a good rationale for doing this if the original author wants them gone and no-one has contributed any content since creation.
In this specific case, the issue is that GeoNames is not a reliable source as it is crowd-sourced. Verifiability requires not just any source, but a reliable one. As there is no reliable source with which we can confirm the data on this page it is a straight WP:V fail.
Even if the source were reliable, this would still be a WP:GEOLAND fail as there is no evidence here of either legal recognition or notability through WP:GNG.
The article describes this location as a "village", which is basically original research since the GeoNames database describes it only as a "Populated place", which on the face of it is a much broader term than "village" and would include single buildings, camps etc. FOARP (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP:

Just an FYI, Mustafapur was created by N ajger, not Encyclopædius.
You're confusing the user-generated GeoNames with GEOnet Names Server, which is based on the Geographic Names Database, containing official standard names approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names and maintained by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. It's a generally reliable source. Reliable enough that it's one of the recommended sources for use in Template:Coord. Reliable doesn't mean always accurate, of course.
For most village articles in Bangladesh, the 2011 census' community report for the relevant district is a second reliable source, and using it to confirm they're legally recognized is fairly trivial (after accounting for the fact that there isn't one standard way of transliterating Bengali, so a number of variants must be considered). For Chandpur: Alumura p. 50, Amanullapur (as Amanullahpur) p. 48, Asrafpur (as Ashrafpur) p. 64, Baidyanathpur p.79, Baluthupa (now divided into East and West Baluthupa union parishads) p. 52, etc.[10] Banstali is an exception. Perhaps it no longer exists or has taken a new name.
For nearly all these "xxx is a village" articles, reliable sources exist that demonstrate existence and legal recognition, so because Wikipedia is a gazetteer, I doubt you will succeed in deleting them. You might, however, be able to build support for redirecting them into "List of villages in yyy district" articles. Gazetteers are mostly a list of one-sentence descriptions, they don't have a separate page or article about every entry. I see that you've reached out to Encyclopædius on their talk page. From their "The best thing ... redirect the small village stubs" comment, it appears that they might support this approach. What do you think of it?
If "List of villages in yyy district" articles were created to be targets of redirection, what information should they list about each village? Administrative geographic context (which upazila and union parishad they're in), geographic coordinates, and population? For Bangladesh, there would be 64 lists, one for each district, and for Chandpur there would be (or it could grow to) in the neighborhood of 1500 list entries. An alternative would be to redirect villages to the smallest enclosing administrative unit, the union parishad. That would lead to embedded lists of more manageable length, but would require 4,554 target articles, only about 500 of which currently exist (and, like the village articles, they're so crappy I really wish they didn't exist).

--Worldbruce (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: - GeoNet is also highly unreliable as to whether a location is populated, since it is created by the same people that created GNIS, using the same methodology. Work on mass-created California articles has uncovered many "populated places" sourced to GNIS that are in fact bridges, sidings, factories, oil wells, springs, mines etc. etc. Wiki is a Gazetteer, but it is not a Gazette of every location in the world regardless of legal recognition, population, or notability. Things have changed significantly in the is regard since 2008, particularly with the introduction and development of the WP:GEOLAND standard.

All the same I am very OK with a redirection strategy as it is at least favoured by WP:PRESERVE so long as the data redirected is sourced to a reliable source (i.e., not just GEONames/Net). FOARP (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hellfire preaching[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability (WP:GNG). Failed to find articles supporting notability as an independent topic. Existing sources are all trivial mentions or not reliable. See also WP:NEO. Allanlw 11:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Allanlw 11:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept is not a neologism as it is especially associated with 18th century people and events such as Jonathan Edwards (theologian) and the Great Awakening. The worst case would be merger with another similar page such as fire and brimstone. For a book on the topic, see The Rhetoric of the Revival: The Language of the Great Awakening Preachers. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's also discussed in The Catholic Historical ReviewVol. 74, No. 3 (Jul., 1988), pp. 383-402, a mention in the New York Times and a ton of other less reliable sources. It exists as a concept and the concept is notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. reasonable start on an article on a widely used term for the genre. Probably thousands of available sources DGG ( talk ) 11:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The term is used but I am not sure we have any SIGCOV of it so this has a problem with DICTDEF. The only definition I found is in a self-published book here. Is there anything better that offers a discussion of this concept? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC) PS. If none such sources are presented, I'd suggest redirecting and merging to Christian views on Hell. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel this really isn't much of a topic on it's own, and should be merged with other relevant topics if necessary. - Wakemeup38 (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant and notable. Numerous use of the concept in the mainstream media.[1][2]. SunDawn (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough reliable sources to make this pass WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is quite a notable rhetorical genre with an important history.--Pharos (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - this was a neologism in 1848. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite a relist no keep argument made and delete votes are not superficial Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Namila Benson[edit]

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

Non-notable media person and author, fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR (the latter assuming her main claim to fame is the book award nomination?). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the subject is a working journalist and in that capacity has interviewed notable subjects, I cannot find any material to satisfy WP:JOURNALIST: she is not "widely cited by peers or successors" or "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". As far as I can find she is simply an ordinary journalist performing her job and accordingly fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amira Charfeddine[edit]

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

While applauding the topic in the lady's book and supporting it wholeheartedly, this is WP:BLP1E for a single book, surely? With regret I can see no place for her yet on Wikipedia. If the outcome is to delete this should be without prejudice to future re-creation should her career as an author become established. WP:NAUTHOR applies Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not believe that the WP:BLP1E policy applies to an author with a single book, but rather the guidelines specific to authors should apply. Looking at the WP:BK guidance, it seems that Cherfeddine's book Wild Fadhila meets the criteria for its own article (I'll make that when I have a chance). And one of the criteria on WP:AUTHOR says: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work... [that's been the subject of] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I believe, as the first Tunisian novel with a gay protagonist and one of the first novels written in Tunisian vernacular, Wild Fadhila meets the notability requirement and so does its author. Karen McNeil (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep (me again)~~ Just saw this in the WP:OUTCOMES page and wanted to add it: "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read." I have currently cited two independent reviews of Cherfeddine's work and the fact that she won a national-level award. Actually, there are three independent reviews, if you included Boubakr Ayadi's description of the novel's language as vulgar and disgusting. I don't think this page is suitable for an AfD at all, and rather just tags for improvement should be added as necessary. Karen McNeil (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as a result of secondary coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable as winner of prize and recipient of substantial coverage. PamD 17:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the author of widely reviewed work. --Gazal world (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Over (film)[edit]

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

~~Film does not meet notability thresholds- coverage consists of WP:ROUTINE reviews. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Hindu and New Indian Express are full reviews, which passes WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The film has at least three full-length reviews (The Hindu, New Indian Express and Sakshi) from mainstream newspapers; therefore meets WP:NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly passes criteria one of WP:NFILM as reviewd in at least two national notable publications which is the determining factor for nationally known critics. Reviews in national newspapers are not routine and are the main notability giving sources for film articles. WP:ROUTINE refers to primary coverage of events such as film premieres not to secondary independent reviews in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Sources added by Wefffrrr are sufficient to address the concerns. Please ensure that these sources and any new sources that come up are maintained in future edits. (non-admin closure) Jalen Folf (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Deewane[edit]

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

No sources. Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transcontinental Times[edit]

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

Non notable news company. My BEFORE didn't help me finding any good coverage. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted because, this is an international registered European media house, internet media based out of Spain. Also, this page has everything notable and enough reference sources, some from top Spanish publication amd few from Indian portals. Please check it thoroughly, if you have good knowledge in the same field and then take the final decision. I have done hard work to create this page. We are covering unbiased global news coverages and Interviews.

With due respect i would like someone to help me out with this and if you need more references, then let me know. You can put citations need tag but don't delete for no valid reason.

~~vishalttplayer~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishalttplayer (talk • contribs) 10:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete ironically, a blackhat SEO site (ie. one which mirrors legitimate journalism but is not in fact a real media outlet) and sourced almost entirely to blackhat SEO itself. CUPIDICAE💕 13:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If I were reviewing this as a draft, I would decline it as saying only what the company says about itself, and not what third parties say. Article does not indicate third-party coverage; I have not searched for third-party coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP Devoke water 11:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pratton, California[edit]

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

For some reason, the GNIS compilers put in the coordinates for Nevills just to the west, but older topos show it to be a siding, presumably to support the business whose building is now occupied by ProFab Metalworx. Searching picked up lots of false hits but genuine hits list it as a rail location. Not a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indiction this was a populated place or had legal recognition, does not meet GNG or GEOLAND, definitely nothing that meets SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 09:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-Jungwon 06:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frère-Bourgeois[edit]

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

PROD contested on the grounds that a Book search shows clear notability, but what I see is listings indicating it exists and other directory style listings. There is coverage around Albert Frère and its constituents, but I can find no evidence of significant, in depth coverage of the holding company. StarM 20:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Google Books Results only lists the company, for notability there need to be significant coverage which is clearly not present. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-Jungwon 06:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP - holding and shell companies are not automatically notable, and nothing about this shows its importance. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One further keep vote following 2 reliefs, but not really enough for a clear consensus Fenix down (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adílio Varela[edit]

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

Despite only just scraping through WP:NFOOTY, a look for sources didn't show any real results for this player. Despite the previous Afd that says that his career might be heading somewhere, that doesn't seem to be the case as it fails WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on basis of comments at last AFD which was less than 12 months ago. The comments that he is young and has ongoing career remain valid. Giant Snowman 12:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's 24 and it's been 3.5 years since he made his only professional appearance of under half an hour. This is not a case of proposing deletion because someone made his only pro appearance last week, there has to be a point in which you stop expecting that he become a regular, and that ship has sailed on my opinion. Come back in eight years when he's the new Enric Gallego or Jamie Vardy 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:84D:7DDF:BE84:4188 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to set the minimum inclusion as multiple games. We also need to stop creating any articles before the subject actually meets inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is just 24 years and actively playing see little point in deleting it.Last played on 7th February 2021.If he had retired or was injured it was different but subjects is actively playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-Jungwon 06:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perlonex[edit]

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

Unclear notability. -- Beland (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly written by someone associated with the project as an attempted promotion. Padding the article with lists of every single gig they ever did indicates that there is nothing else to write about. I can find no professional media coverage, and they are only visible in the usual retail and directory services, and even those are rare. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the article needs a rewrite but they do have two staff written album reviews at AllMusic and significant coverage at ink19 here. Not very familiar with ink19 so it is a weak keep, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-Jungwon 05:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NMUSIC.-KH-1 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Leon Hamlin[edit]

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

Despite death/obituary coverage from The New York Times, this regional theatre figure does not meet WP:GNG. Open to a redirect to North Carolina Black Repertory Company or National Black Theatre Festival. KidAd • SPEAK 07:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a Times obit, combined with other in-depth coverage, means WP:SIGCOV is satisfied. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYT obit was republished around the US, the NYT by itself is a newspaper of record, other coverage such as [11], [12], [13], [14], in-depth coverage in local papers (WP:AUD does not apply to people though I sometimes wish it did), etc., etc. GNG is met. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (etc here refers to paywalled coverage that contributes to GNG which I cannot figure out how to link. Happy to email examples upon request) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-Jungwon 05:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deffo meets gng. Added another ref. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Allen (Oxford University cricketer)[edit]

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

An Australian who while studying played two matches. Never played again as they left cricket after graduation. Nothing in sources. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Oxford University Cricket Club players Has played 2 FC matches, but I couldn't find any coverage, although searching was difficult due to common name and not knowing if anything he did/does post cricket is notable. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player with one or a few matches but no coverage, is redirected/deleted. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~Keep per WP:HEY (per wjemather and Rugbyfan22)~~, there is a valid alternative to deletion~~. Störm, please give it a rest on on the deletion of Australian cricket articles, will you? It is becoming tedious and annoying. Deus et lex (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So we should keep junk articles on not-notables just because it's annoying? Sorry, but these articles need action and your sentiment would be better directed at the editors mass-generating these mini-stubs without ever looking for sources beyond their favourite database(s). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that it's clear that proper WP:BEFORE searches are not being done on the articles being nominated, and policy is not being applied properly. That's what is annoying. This one is a clear example where a bit more searching could have revealed a few more sources, or a good redirect alternative that doesn't require an AfD. And don't confuse stub status with lack of notability, it's perfectly fine to create a stub. Deus et lex (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, you wouldn't find much if you searched for him and cricket, which is all that can be expected for a BEFORE. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found enough sources to (just about) pass WP:GNG; article expanded. Seemingly more notable as a rugby player than a cricketer, so article title may need further discussion should this be kept. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Following the article having been updated, while his rugby league and rugby union careers are not notable, and his cricketing career are just notable, there looks just to be enough to pass WP:GNG as stated by Wjemather. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would also recommend moving this page to John Allen (sportsman, born 1974) or similar given this new information. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - the article was improved, but I don't really see WP:GNG-qualifying coverage (though I can't access the Telegraph article): much of it is match reports, the Oxford Mail isn't bad but it's local (not excluding it, but down-weighting considering it's the clearest/best source) and the remaining sources aren't independent (Oxford captains list, his school handbook). He is more notable for rugby and would prefer a redirect to a rugby-based page if possible. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A fair chunk of the Telegraph article is about him tbf. It's not particularly detailed, but two of the 4 paragraphs cover his role in the side and a bit about him playing rugby. He played Super Rugby for the Brumbies so that could be a possible redirect (there's no list of Brumbies players or former players section on the page). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he played for the Brumbies, even one match, that's an important key to his notability, but I can't verify this: is there a good historical super league player stats database similar to afltables.com? SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the site I use for stats, itsrugby, had an outage and is still be repaired. A more in depth search seems to show he didn't actually play Super Rugby and only played for the Brumbies in the Ricoh Championship, which isn't listed as a notable league at WP:NRU. For me it's a weak GNG pass as I think there's enough from sources there when combined to pass and i've updated my vote accordingly. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I got that information from, will add it to the article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that when adding it, even though the Oxford Mail article says "in the Super 12". There seems to be a few mentions of him in the Sydney Morning Herald, which might help identify the match(es) he appeared in and expand on his earlier club cricket and rugby, but I can't access them at the moment as I'm waiting on my subscription renewal. I've also added more detail regarding his pre-Oxford education. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wjemather Please provide links. I have access to SMH. Störm (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're not on SMH or SMH archive as they don't cover the relevant period, however they are on Newspapers.com (search for him along with Brumbies/Hawkesbury/etc.). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the post-nom expansion work. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the coverage cited in the article is sufficient to show GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep would be very marginal indeed on WP:NCRIC, but passes WP:GNG on the basis of the expansion. The comment "nothing in sources" in the original AfD is risible based on the revised article, and makes it clear that there was no meaningful searching done before an AfD was submitted. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now more sources have been found GNG is satisfied. Might be worth pinging the rugby project too, might be more sources for his rugby career out there. StickyWicket (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AssociateAffiliate Have had a look, theres's a few bits with passing mentions, but not much else. His rugby career wasn't that notable with no matches that'd pass him for WP:NRU and they were at the start of the 2000s anyway so I'm not sure if they'd be online anyway. There's enough from his cricket and other bits to pass him for GNG though as I've said above. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What really gets me though is that he's far more notable as a rugby player than he is as a cricketer, including the (local) article which addresses him specifically as a rugby player, and yet he would comprehensively fail the rugby notability guideline. This strikes me as a huge problem. Play two cricket matches without bowling a single ball or scoring a single run and have your name appear in a local article and boom! Notable! SportingFlyer T·C 21:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Khalid[edit]

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

Other than database entries, no source has written about them. Seems like they are not notable. The article fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players Has played 1 FC match, but I couldn't find any coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches but no coverage, is redirected/deleted.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players. No significant coverage and and abject failure of all notability guidelines including NCRIC. University cricket is not the "highest level of domestic cricket" irrespective of the historical status of some matches – a paradox that has finally ended – and it is an abuse of an already extremely weak guideline to have used it as justification for creation of articles such as these. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players or delete if not. Played one first class match for a university, didn't score a run, didn't take a wicket. The most marginal of cases. DevaCat1 (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 03:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Hurricanes Storm Squad[edit]

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

Promotional article on sports cheerleading squad. As written, article does not claim general notability, and sports notability does not apply to cheerleading squads. The article needs to be blown up and started over both to establish notability, if the unit is notable, and to remove the advertising. Has been created both in draft space and in article space, possibly in order to game the system to block movement of the article to draft space. This nomination is both for tone, for a marginal G11, and for notability. The references include Instagram and Facebook. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with storm and fire: If anything, the nom's too kind. "They were the very first "spirit squad" for professional hockey in North America and is now one of the more iconic NHL cheer squads of all time." Seriously? Hell, cheering squads for NHL teams existed in the 1960s, however ephemerally. I wouldn't even countenance a redirect-without-merger. Ravenswing 07:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advert, ideally Speedy. Consider extending this to the Draft version also. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Having any kind of relation with the Carolina Hurricanes alone is not a measure of notability. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When I saw the name, I thought that it was an emergency rescue squad in case a hurricane blew in. But I looked and saw that it was only sport cheerleaders. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 18:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly promotional. Nigej (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears promotional. –DMartin 06:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Efrem Emerson[edit]

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

Non-notable author. no references other than the author's own small-press publisher. It was first PRODded for notability in 2008, when it had no references at all; the PROD was removed by an author who at least added the non-independent references of the author's publisher (both of which are now dead links).

No further indication of notability any since that time. Any hits I can find are either Wikipedia mirrors, catalog listings of books (Amazon, Google books, Abebooks, etc.) and various unrelated sited like Linkedin. TJRC (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR, no reviews found of Emerson's works, gsearch brings up usual book sale/blog sites only. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to meeting the inclusion criteria for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar Ahmed (Faisalabad cricketer)[edit]

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

Played five matches in 2017 but his performance was not up to the mark so dropped from the team. Never selected again. Scored 182 runs in 5 matches. Not much to write about him. Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC having played in five first-class matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played 9 FC matches and 3 List-A matches according to CricketArchive passing him for WP:NCRIC. Has played for two different teams so not sure a redirect is possible here, but again has played 12 matches in top level competitions for the time so not sure he should be deleted anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played at least five first class matches, meaning a comfortable pass of WP:NCRIC. Just because they were in a single season doesn't make those matches less relevant. As with many others in this batch of AfDs, it's likely that coverage will be in Urdu or other non-English languages; it's unclear in this context what "nothing in coverage" actually means. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Can find no significant coverage, just the usual scorecard-driven databases, but this (not a reliable source, admittedly) suggests that "Iftikhar Ahmed made headlines of few newspapers", and the number of matches played over several seasons (including non-FC), give a reasonable expectation of coverage somewhere. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Hyderabad cricketers (Pakistan). Demonstrated gng fail and for a BLP an sng pass is not enough where the sourcing is inadequate Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khadim Hussain (cricketer, born 1976)[edit]

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

Had a struggling career, nothing much to write about. Five years have elapsed since this one-line creation by User:Lugnuts, still nothing in coverage. Badly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did have a prolific career, playing in multiple matches across all three formats (7 first-class, 4 List A, 4 T20 matches), so meeting WP:NCRIC. Worst case, as an WP:ATD, redirect to List of Hyderabad cricketers (Pakistan). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played 7 FC matches, 4 List-A matches and 4 T20 matches passing him for WP:NCRIC. Has played for two different teams so not sure a redirect is possible here, but having played 15 matches, with a number of them in top level competitions for the time, including the 4 T20 matches, i'm not sure he should be deleted anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hyderabad cricketers (Pakistan) is a suitable WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. No in-depth coverage. There aren't sufficient source to write a biography, nor will there ever be. WP:WHYN explains we require significant coverage "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page..." ----Pontificalibus 16:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OK, he's no Bradman. But if this was a UK or Australian cricketer with 15 top-class appearances across three formats, then I suspect we would not be having this discussion. Just because sources may be difficult to access doesn't mean that they don't exist: how about engaging with people who might help you find them, instead of this endless parade of negativism? Johnlp (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect to List of Hyderabad cricketers (Pakistan). No significant coverage, only wide ranging databases built on scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Passes NCRIC by virtue of playing several matches for one of the weakest teams in Pakistan domestic FC/LA/T20 cricket at the time, but this does not trump the GNG fail and he made no substantial contributions in these matches to give any confidence that coverage exists. Redirect is an accepted alternative to deletion. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple matches in all three formats. I would question all of the assertions above that there is no coverage, as I doubt any of us can read Pakistani media sources in languages other than English. It's exactly this type of player that sports notability guidelines exist for- those who have decent careers, but play in a country where most coverage will be in other languages. For the umpteenth time, WP:GNG is not the relevant criterion here, but even if it were I suspect the lack of coverage just speaks to a lack of bilingual editors, rather than a genuine absence of coverage. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is someone who played (maybe still does) in the internet age, and Google translate works pretty well. You're welcome to repeat my attempts to find significant coverage in other languages (Sindhi, Urdu). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Hyderabad cricketers (Pakistan). SNG passes do not count where it is demonstrated that a BLP fails the GNG but a redirect to a list is always the best middle ground. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abid Ali (cricketer, born 1979)[edit]

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

Never had a prolific career, nothing much to write about. Nothing in coverage either. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did have a prolific career, playing in multiple matches across all three formats (8 first-class, 1 List A, 2 T20 matches), so meeting WP:NCRIC. Worst case, as an WP:ATD, redirect to List of Hyderabad cricketers (Pakistan). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has played 8 FC matches, 1 List-A match and 2 T20 matches suggesting a significant career that meets WP:NCRIC. Has played for two different teams so not sure a redirect is possible, but deleting somebody that's played 11 matches would be concerning, especially as a number of those matches, especially the T20's were in top level competition at the time. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hyderabad cricketers (Pakistan) is a suitable WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of Hyderabad cricketers (Pakistan). No significant coverage, only wide ranging databases built on scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The trivial pass of NCRIC, by virtue of playing a few matches for one of the weakest teams playing in Pakistani FC cricket at the time (so arguably not meeting the "highest standard" requirement of NCRIC), does not trump the GNG failure. Redirection is an accepted ATD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So why bother waste your time in expanding the article, only for 6 minutes later to come here to add your !vote for deletion? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from properly researching before !voting (unlike those who robotically handwave at NCRIC), I'll often take the time to expand articles that I see might have a possibility of being kept in order that they won't remain a one-sentence directory entry of an article – "x is a y cricketer who played for z" is really not acceptable. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree that this is a trivial pass, and there is nothing in any guidelines, WP:NCRIC or otherwise regarding the strength of team played for, rather than the standard of the overall competition. If you don't like NCRIC, and all the other sports notability guidelines, most of which are much more restrictive than for cricket, then that's a different conversation to whether this article passes the relevant criteria. I'd also question whether there are really no article references existing, rather than that you have found- you, and Störm, have good reading skills in Urdu, and checked Pakistani media sources, including hard copy? DevaCat1 (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, due to the unstable structure of Pakistani domestic cricket, and with most of the best/notable players with the departmental teams, the relative strength of the regional teams is very relevant to the likelihood of significant coverage existing. And yes, I looked for sources in both Sindhi and Urdu. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing falls far short of GNG, which is the minimum to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 8 first class matches, plus both List A and T20 matches means a comprehensive pass of WP:NCRIC. Given the number of matches, there is almost certainly coverage which can be appended. Needs working on and improving, not deleting. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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