Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 27 March 29 >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

West Los Angeles Transit Center[edit]

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

This article concerns a bus terminal in Los Angeles. Despite being created in 2008, it currently cites no sources and BEFORE searches returned only two secondary sources ([3], [4]) that mentioned the terminal at all and did so only in a very cursory, passing fashion.

In short, I don't think this article meets WP:GNG or any other SNG. And given the lack of secondary sources, I don't see how this article could be supported with reliable citations. These issues have also been flagged on the page since 2016, so I don't see this changing any time soon. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It exists, but its creation was only two sentences in the Los Angeles Times on a local article on bus route creation in 1979. There's probably a place in the encyclopaedia to mention this, but it doesn't pass WP:GNG and doesn't deserve a stand-alone article, unless of course we're searching for the wrong thing, but that seems unlikely. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete or merge. Based on the substantial level of participation in the discussion, and the reasonably well-argued majority position for keeping at this time, it does not seem likely that relisting the discussion will yield any different result. There is no dispute that this is a geographic designation (even if unofficial) which is found in some reliable sources, and there is a reasonable argument that identified potential merge targets would generally only be appropriate for part of the subject, but not the entirety of it. This close is without prejudice to future proposals to merge to an appropriate target if one is identified, or to adjust the scope of the article to a more encompassing overall topic. BD2412 T 19:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Woollen District[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of User:RailwayJG, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Deletion of the Heavy Woollen District for JG's reasons. My own Google searching appears to only return unreliable sources and promotional ones or otherwise don't contain significant coverage. Books does return a bit of info that appears independent though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears to be a name with some history, appearing in Commercial Relations of the United States with Foreign Countries from 1868, specific parliamentary discussion including discussion of unionisation from 1905, and significantly referenced in government transportation studies from the 1970s. The article's sourcing could be improved, but this definitely passes WP:GNG as a "non-official" geography. Much of the sourcing I found was from the late 19th century, so the place name may be more historical than it has been (logical due to its industrial nature) but this is not a reason for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Geography Talk Page. This is an unofficial area, but it is of some historical significance and retains some significance to this day if only informal use by organisations (football leagues, clubs, CAMRA, historical societies etc). An alternative would be to merge content to all the sub-articles referenced in the Category, but some standardised text would be required and a stub article may be better in any case. Koncorde (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not merge the article into Kirklees Leeds and Wakefield borough pages. It doesn't warrant imo an article of its own with no official stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging would suggest that this page could be redirected to one or all 3. I initially considered that with Kirklees (as most descriptions suggest thr district is "north Kirklees" with Kirklees then having its own sub-section but it would achieve much the same as this article in any case, and it isn't historically associated with Kirklees as an entity. It has similar significance to the region as Staffordshire Potteries, Wigan Pier or the Royal Mile to their own as both a contextual piece of history and an ongoing colloquial descriptor used by the local populace and organisations. There is also a fair amount of historic coverage, multiple books making more than just passing comment about either the district itself, or the Trams or Transport company. Koncorde (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • (And just to be clear: I am not suggesting it has the same popular usage or even historical or cultural significance as those: just that it shares the same underlying idea even if it has fallen out of use / significance / relevance in recent years other than by local organisations). Koncorde (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a long-established, still-used, informal name for an area which does not correspond to local authority boundaries past or present. If there are multiple definitions or descriptions, so much the better for: a Wikipedia article can discuss and source them, to help the reader who wants to know why the cricket league (etc) has this curious name. PamD 06:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked, and there appears to be ample historical documentation of this subject to support an article. There's stuff from analysis of wages through the reason for rising and falling employment rates between the world wars to smallpox vaccination rates out there to be used, none of which has been yet and all specific to this named district. Uncle G (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as stand-alone. As someone who's only just visited the Yorkshire Dales 80 miles away for the first time (only to buy a car from Otley in the short-daylight of November lockdown, otherwise I would have had a better look around) this has been instructional for me. Reminds of my late mother sending me as a toddler to the rag and bone cart with a bundle almost as big as me for a pittance (thrupence - "...is that all he's given you - and it was all wool...") and the post-war shake-up mattresses, pre spring interior. Now I can better-appreciate the industry/technology of the time. Per PamD, that's what the WP experience enables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocknrollmancer (talk • contribs) 2021-03-29T12:52:41 (UTC)
  • Can't say I agree with reasons it should be kept as there is no official ons or anything government wise to back up the district or area existence. The name is not what I am aware of as I live in Batley. I also think this name is more a coined name used and is better merged into the West Yorkshire Article as a separate tab. The reasons above are sensible but it seems more trivial then solid to be a stand alone article just because some corporations used it and it had a name in 1794 or so. Doesn't to me warrant a separate article. It just seems too bantering and joking to be taken seriously. And it has no defining coverage just a map with a bunch of towns. Its not really a district or an area. It is just a nickname. It should be merged with West Yorkshire as it has no official website or a ward/parish to back up its stance as a district or area. It need some contemporary sources not past names. I could write now an article called the Fenland District and put Louth Wisbech and Ely in them as they are the Fenlands. But no reliable sources back it and another example is the so called Manchester and Liverpool Megapolis. Just because they are near one and other doesn't warrant a Merseyside and Greater Manchester County Area. Heavy Woollen District is just a local nickname and is to me not of notable importance and significance. And that's coming from someone who lives in this supposed made-up district.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 15:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is ample reliable evidence of the use of the term, including use by institutions no longer connected to the wool trade. The district does not map closely to any local authority area, as the article says, but that is a good reason for an article separate from articles on local government districts and not merging into them.--Mhockey (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't think institutions and use of names were reliable sources I thought it was books articles and historical facts not because it appears in the name of an establishment?

    And unofficial means it is not actually there. It is just a name coined so how can a non official name be given its own article? I could just call all of Hyndburn borough Accrington Stanley and it be the name of a football team but it be reverted as it is not an official name. So how does an article with no official recognition other then in a coined term get a strong standing article of its own? Seems misinforming and very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:GEOLAND states: Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. This doesn't have legal recognition, but it's clearly been discussed by a number of reliable sources and passes WP:GNG, meaning we can have an article on it. I do agree the sourcing could be improved a bit. SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • As SportingFlyer, there are dozens of historical books dating back to the 1800's, and certainly as recently as the 1970's it was being used for Transport studies etc and is still referenced in timetables.[5][6][7][8][9]. It may not be of mega popular use these days, but that doesn't negate notability. Koncorde (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: I see lots of passing mentions but no in-depth coverage. Perhaps you could give a WP:THREE for a GNG pass?----Pontificalibus 08:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pontificalibus: There's so many potential sources in parliamentary proceedings, books, and historical newspapers. [10]. Most of the mentions in newspapers die out by 1930, but there are thousands of hits which clearly define the region. I'm not going to be able to find a feature article on the name for you, though. SportingFlyer T·C 10:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again probably just me and some others but I think a tab of it in the West Yorkshire article would be more beneficial as West Yorkshire is more well known and given all of it falls under the county. I make more sense to have it in the West Yorkshire Article and it linked to the places mentioned in the Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield Articles. As well as each town or village it covers. I still fail to see the reason a stand alone article is needed for it. At least my urban area or built-up area articles are officially recognised by ONS and statistics. But this should not be reffered to as a district as it is not one. Maybe the lead should say "The Heavy Woollen Area is the name of a former wollen cloth made in parts of Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield in West Yorkshire, England". Then mention the rest but I challege the use of the term District as a district is usually associated with suburbs, cities and councils. Not a non-existing or unrecognized area.RailwayJG (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would be happy to have this discussion closed if the following changes were to be agreed on. Change District to Area and keep the lead as followed by me:

    "The Heavy Woollen Area is the name of a former woolen cloth area which was made in parts of the modern day boroughs of Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield in West Yorkshire, England. Located around the towns of Dewsbury, Batley, Heckmondwike and Ossett."

    And then If agreed. Including the change of name from district to area. I will happily ask for closure on the nomination. But if both are refused, I will continue to challenge it.RailwayJG (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have moved the page to Heavy Woollen Area article and made the lead changes. As it is agreed to keep. I think it the discussion can be closed. Happy with consensus and my neutral moving of the page. RailwayJG (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reliable sources call it district. It should be referred to as such. We just need to make clear in the lede that it is not an official district like a Rural or Urban. Please stop taking unilateral actions after you raised the PROD until discussions are completed and a reviewer officially closes. Koncorde (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you are doing is factually wrong, however. All of the documentation that people are pointing to calls it the Heavy Woollen District.

      You are going about this completely the wrong way. There's a documented thing that is addressed by numerous people over a period that is well over a century that is named a Heavy Woollen District. If there's enough reliable documentation for Wikipedia editors to write an article explaining to people, including you, who live in the area and have never heard of it, the actual history of your area and what the Heavy Woollen District was, then that's the right course of action.

      It's not about what you have heard about. It's not about your personal opinion of what something should be called in your view, long after the fact. This is a documented historical thing, and that's what it was called. We want people like you, who don't know what this is, to be able to look it up in an encyclopaedia, should they encounter mention of it somewhere. If you want to write about this subject, then please do your research, and go and find things to read about it before attempting to write and arguing about what its name is.

      Uncle G (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine keep it, I don't agree with it having an article but that my own opinion which Wikipedia isn't based on. But I think if thats the case. Fine I am not gonna argue it. I try to be constructive and don't see how an unofficial geograph as on a case-by-case basis doesn't warrant a place coined by a name and not by unofficial recognition by Kirklees, Leeds or Wakefield Councils... can have its own article with nothing government related but a local nickname. Could make a page for Manchester and Liverpool Being a megapolis but nothing supports it. It is done by assumptions and urban areas. RailwayJG (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a Liverpool–Manchester Megalopolis article, it used to be Liverpool–Manchester rivalry but someone moved it in 2019 and changed what the whole article was about. Although some of that was my fault, cos I added a brief section about it to the article 10 years ago, when I was a newbie editor. Eopsid (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think some of the arguments above are rather missing the point. The area cannot have a website because it isn't an administrative entity, and never has been, but it is a long-established and widely recognised term for the area. It may be necessary to look for publications that pre-date the web for sources, as I think the term has perhaps fallen out of use a little since the 1980s. Koncorde's suggestion of the Staffordshire Potteries as a comparison is good, as it is another area historically united by a common industry. The South Wales Valleys and the Black Country would be further examples. --188.28.141.170 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to West Yorkshire as a non-notable informal area without legal recognition per WP:GEOLAND. None of the keep votes above have provided sources to support a standalone article - the current sources are certainly insufficient, containing no in-depth coverage.----Pontificalibus 08:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The region is referred to in a number of books, Hansard etc both as discussion of organisations of the area, for the area, and about the area. This is far from exhaustive but demonstrates that it had ubiquitous usage for the area up to the 1970's at the least.[11] Further sources provided here, at Geography, and on the subject talk page all refer specifically not just to the usage of the phrase, but also recurringly the description of the industry, its people, its organisations, business groups, travel etc as well as regional planning by administrative units that are well beyond trivial coverage (although some are trivial) and continued reference by tourism boards etc in historical summaries - and that is without going offline for additional sourcing (for which a reference list from the West Yorkshire Archive association is provided on the talk page). Koncorde (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped a few links into Ext heading commented out - haven't got the time presently, but the Diocese of Leeds looks interesting.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree merge into West Yorkshire. One could make a tab about this district in the Kirklees Wakefield and Leeds Pages. And cover it in detail. Don't see why it needs a separate article. One other thing that could be done is to merge it into a new article which covers the former Yorkshire industrial history and cover all the areas with a district.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Railway JG (talk • contribs) 15:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do anything with Heavy Woollen District Trades Council: 1891-1904 minutes but County Archives will have got the title right. Another Primary - is anybody bovvered? Not me.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many keep arguments rely on widespread usage of the term in sources, but this isn't enough. For example consider "Central Southern England" - this is used in numerous contexts to refer to an informal area, but there's no consensus on what this area is, and no sources discuss this area in detail outside of their own specific contexts, so we don't have an article on it. Just because a trade union, or a bus company talk extensively about their "Heavy Woollen District", this doesn't make the term notable outside of those contexts. So we could have an article on the Heavy Woollen District branch of the General Union of Textile Workers, or the Heavy Woollen District Transport Association or whatever, but unless there are sources discussing and defining the area in detail outside of specific uses, we can't have an article on it (Look at the Further Reading on Staffordshire Potteries for the type of coverage needed). Lots of sources have been waved around, but can anyone name several specific ones that are sufficient to satisfy GNG? If not, WP:PAGEDECIDE suggests we may be much better off talking about this area in the context of another article, such as West Yorkshire.----Pontificalibus 06:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Pontificalibus. There is names for north and south Midlands which were used for Milton Keynes for example but nothing sufficient enough to warrant a separate article. Either a merge into the West Yorkshire Article would be better or a new article as you suggested with names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PAGEDECIDE states "When creating new content about a notable topic..." (emphasis added); this was created in 2005 and that content still holds good. This is typical of the contrived, artificial arguments that WP has been developed to allow; invoking sigcov, as I expected and wrote into Talk 29 March simply does not heavily apply to non-topical - historic - articles.

No-one wrote or writes copiously, explicitly, with the secondary-motive of anticipating third-party usage at some point - 1, 10, 40 or 100 years later.

7:2 !votes, not counting proxy-nom Crouch, Swale as an indeterminate, presumably recused and again an indeterminate, Eopsid (non-!vote) {not pinged to obviate shouts of canvassing]. There is ample evidence that this was significant around Batley, as just one place, contrary to the experiences of the de facto nom; and these uses are ongoing. One (ownership unclear) source has comprehensive coverage but with a lot off-topic, so add {{Unreliable source}}? Obviously (again as I wrote at Talk), there's always going potential for some degree of CIRCULAR; I first encountered blatant local plagiarism and copyvio from national in 1980; 'they' (now Bauer) were entirely unconcerned, confirming it was expected in the print trade and something they learn as apprentices, but agreed it was OTT.

How many more changes of tack will there be? So, to summarise:
it's not a District;
no defined boundaries
there's no website/legal status
the de facto nom has never heard of it despite historic sources to the contrary
it fails GNG
The sources are insufficiently-deep and/or recent/regularly-ongoing
one source is unreliable/localised
it fails geoland
Anything else to invoke?

Moving/renaming would be WP denying history. I didn't just dream-up the Encyclopædia Britannica refs; almost though, after a sleep I awoke remembering another similar article, also termed as a 'district' from 2005, changed to "area" in 2017 (the deletionists don't know about it ).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you brough up the North Midlands and South Midlands RailwayJG but articles do exist for them. I'm a keep vote, because the article has lots of sources mentioning the district, I think a lot of which have been added since this deletion discussion started. but I will admit the article is quite messy at the moment. Eopsid (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pontificalibus: Your point isn't really true - the district's clearly defined as being centred on Dewsbury and including Batley, and is discussed as a district by the Leeds newspapers in the 1890s, and is discussed as a whole in articles like this or this. The area's also been defined by the UK government. It's not a vague region, it is discussed and defined by sources. SportingFlyer T·C 13:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ThanQ, User:Eopsid, that is 8:2 !votes then. The article may have looked a touch messy, as I added a new ref under a separate Notes heading, which auto-generated a TOC; I then placed the historic union text behind the existing first part to verify the actual name, all as a separate lede, adding another placeholder heading for the main body. It looked 'wrong' as there's really not enough for headings, so I deleted the Notes heading, placing the ref inline, which removed the TOC, etc. I knew it would likely be messed with so wasn't a priority.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ringo Starr discography#Compilation albums. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Icon (Ringo Starr album)[edit]

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

Pretty notable artist, but this particular compilation seems to fail WP:NALBUM. I can't find any coverage apart from the AllMusic review cited in the article, which by itself is not enough to establish notability. Did not chart and no other indication of notability. Should be redirected to Ringo Starr discography#Compilation albums Lennart97 (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:28, 28 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 21:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grays Corner, Buckingham County, Virginia[edit]

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

Non-notable unincorporated area ( This is a testing balloon of sorts; if this is deleted I have a bunch of other unincorporated areas in Virginia to nominate as well, but I don't want to mass-nominate until I know if they would be deleted or not.) Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the searches I conducted bring up a couple passing mentions, but I couldn't find significant coverage of this location. Possibly a road junction. Either way, it fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm Talk 22:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Virginia has massive swaths of articles falsely characterizing places as communities, or at least failing to establish such neighborhoods are notable, due to a ill-conceived mass production of pages from the WP:GNIS. Reywas92Talk 22:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found 1 fact, but it turned out to be about Grays Corner, Westmoreland County, Virginia, named after local landowners. Uncle G (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of philatelic material depicting an aspect of Pakistan[edit]

List of philatelic material depicting an aspect of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: This list only looks like a random collection of country links that fail notability WP:LISTN and WP:LISTVERIFY. No significant coverage in published reliable sources are found. Only one of the numerous entires has a source to verify its existence. ww2censor (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ww2censor (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ww2censor (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to creator, notability unknown. No discussion, not in any tome. (Apologies to Elvis.) Fails LISTN per nom and being too broad and ill-defined a criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to explain such an obviously failure of WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary, and I severely doubt pages like this exist for any other country. And if they do, delete those too. AdoTang (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A massive list sourced to a blog? Of stamps or stamp-like things that have something vaguely to do with Pakistan?? The content isn't even comprehensible enough to fit into Postage stamps and postal history of Pakistan. Estheim (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. As it fails WP:GNG. Iflaq (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Devokewater 14:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No obvious notability as a topic, fantastic title though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BD2412 T 19:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunda Empire[edit]

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

I proposed the deletion of this article for the reasons of being a one-off Facebook meme that has no lasting notability.

The fictitious entity "Sunda Empire" is not a real historical kingdom nor a contemporary political movement with substantial societal followings and impact. This is shown from the excerpt from an article on the group by the Jakarta Post:[1]

The ridiculous, if amusing, claims of the self-appointed Grand Prime Minister of the Sunda Empire-Earth Empire in Bandung, West Java, and the King of the Keraton Agung Sejagat (world empire) in Purworejo, Central Java, have led them to becoming laughing stocks over the past few weeks.

The quote shows that the entity does not seem to be a serious movement and more of a "meme" that has been consumed by the public on social media for an entertainment purpose.

Its "online meme" nature is also attested by the following quotes by another article.[2]

The emergence of the so-called Sunda Empire-Earth Empire in West Java's provincial capital of Bandung, which the group claimed as the home city of the world's diplomatic corps, has caused a sensation online.

The Sunda Empire came into spotlight shortly after social media was rocked by the emergence of "Keraton Agung Sejagat" or “World Empire”, an apparently fictitious kingdom based in Purworejo regency, Central Java, which claimed itself to be the successor of the ancient Majapahit Empire.

The leader of the movement has been arrested shortly after the sensation and there has been no real development toward an actual creation of a legitimate political entity.

As such, there will be no content of the article besides their fringe claims based on no historical groundings, and the arrest of the leaders. A WP:WEBNOTE tag was placed since January and after several attempts by different authors to demonstrate the notability of the entity, it still does not exceed the length of a stub article.

For these reasons, I believe this article does not meet WP:GNG and needs to be deleted. JahlilMA (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The coverage is in Indonesian, but the titles suggest this meme may be notable, on the other hand the coverage seems to be from a short period of few days suggesting WP:NOTNEWS. But the article is confusing and may even be WP:TNTable. The lead mentions claims not supported by the body, and the article doesn't make it clear what is the topic. Is it a meme? An NGO? A hoax? It's a mess, that what it is. Ping me if better sources are found and this mess is rewritten to make it clear what the article is about. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I considered nominating this myself. It is some sort of joke/fantasy world that does not seem to have gained enduring attention. Mccapra (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Facebook fantasy does not have notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2021 Hartlepool by-election. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Mortimer[edit]

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

Election candidate for 2021_Hartlepool_by-election. WP:POLITICIAN is explicitly clear: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." All coverage is related to that making this a WP:TOOSOON case, which can be recreated if she wins. Valenciano (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Valenciano (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems daft, only to recreate it in a few weeks, but yeah, WP:CRYSTAL and all that. Jdcooper (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did think about that, but not nomming stuff like this is effectively giving people precedent to create articles on candidates in a 5 to 6-week run-up to an election and then arguing that we should just wait till election day and see. Such articles are often promo pieces. This largely avoids that, but there's nothing in it which isn't in the by-election article. Valenciano (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the stipulation that the page can be freely re-created should she get elected. --The Right 'Orrible (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election so that it can be more easily created if she gets more press coverage. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would support this idea. Would also help the page not get recreated in the meantime (unlike deletion). Jdcooper (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Chessrat. I considered proposing draftification, but it's enough of a stub that retainable content isn't really an issue. Vaticidalprophet 23:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Will set a bad precedent even for by-elections. Kalamikid (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election. It does seem harsh, as all but one of the other candidates are former MPs and have articles, but these are our rules. Farmer and local councillor plus candidate does not add up to notability. Keep the various categories for the redirect. PamD 12:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Hartlepool by-election, I think it's better if the page is for the meantime directed there- if she doesn't win, no skin off our noses, if she does win, can easily be recreated.BitterGiant (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Delete. As someone above said this is not standard practice for by-elections and they should not have an article until elected MP, which probably won’t happen in Hartlepool anyway. P.S. My guess is a Labour win on a very low vote share due to a split vote with the independent ex Labour candidate taking some anti Labour votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:C189:F4D5:14B7:427A (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as per Chessrat. Will remove the risk that the page is turned into a campaign ad in the coming weeks. OGBC1992 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As usual, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, but this does not even try to claim that she has preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten her into Wikipedia independently of the candidacy. I'm not convinced that redirecting unsuccessful candidates to the elections they ran in is warranted in most cases — for one thing, they significantly outlast the likelihood that anybody would ever actually be searching for that person anymore, and for another, they can actively interfere with the process of getting an article created if and when a different, more notable Jill Mortimer comes along. So I just don't see a redirect as necessary in such cases. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't the first time someone has jumped the gun and created a page for someone they think is the likely winner of a UK by-election, and it wont be the last. It's important we don't allow this to set a precedent. I disagree with calls for a redirect - I think its satisfactory for people searching the name to get a typical list of results, with the by-election likely being the first one. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:00, 29 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 21:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Zoe Today[edit]

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

I don't think this satisfies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(media) FMSky (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability and lots of evidence of self promotion. Canterbury Tail talk 16:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the subject doesn't seem to pass notability criteria. Top results from search engines are user dependent websites. Iflaq (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The notability test for radio content is not simply the ability to use the show's own self-published content about itself as technical verification that it exists — it requires journalistic coverage about the show to appear in media, but no such sources are being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Coverage is weak and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sindee Jennings[edit]

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

This was nominated for speedy G4, but it has considerably more content and references than it had when deleted previously, so I think it would need another AfD. Beyond that, I have no opinion whatsoever. Whoever closes this, please do not consider my nomination as a !vote for delete or a !vote against deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tagged this for G4, which was declined because of new references. Still lacking in non-trivial independent reliable references needed to pass WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Several porn award nominations, but porn nominations were deprecated from WP:BIO in 2014 as not credible indicators of notability. Other wikis indicate a NightMoves win, but that award failed the "well-known and significant industry award" criteria of PORNBIO. The article is basically a filmography rendered both as prose and as list, where the bulk of the references back up the only film appearances. A more detailed breakdown of sources: 1. IAFD - non-significant coverage; 2. Texas Confidential: trivial listing; 3. Do androids sleep...: cast listing (trivial mention); 4. XBIZ: promotional press release - not independent; 5. AVN: cast listing; 6. adultfilmdatabase.com: neither reliable nor significant; 7. AVN: trivial mention of cast members; 8. AVN: trivial mention in apparent press release; 9. AVN: cast listing in promotional press release.; 10. adultchamber.com: press release/business directory listing; 11. XBIZ: promotional press release; 12. IMDb: cited for porn award nominations. Independent searches for reliable sources come up with nothing substantial. No real change in notability since it was deleted in 2014. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it does not meet the criteria So I created the article in good faith and don't mind if it gets deleted. After some discussions linked by User:Gene93k at Talk:Sindee Jennings discussions were made to establish a criteria. But NOTHING was updated in the WP:Notability guidelines that new users or people editing these pages can find. This created a persistent issue as shown in multiple discussion AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicia Fox,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani Daniels, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Chechik. User:Gene93k also mentions "claims of porn awards satisfying WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO fail without support of independent reliable sources. Nearly every such appeal since 2019 has failed at AfD. " so why is no one doing an RfC to update the Guidelines to prevent this issue? --Cs california (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG Devokewater 10:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Ho (oceanographer)[edit]

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

Fails the criteria either for academics or business people HighKing++ 19:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the MA profile shows a decent number of publications and citations, with 100 publications and 3500 citations in a presumably low citation field he seems to be either close or above the bar for WP:NPROF. Adding this to the media coverage the bamboo bikes have generated, he could probably pass the bar (article in NYT, SFGate etc). --hroest 02:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is actually a surprisingly highly-cited field. Per Scopus metrics of Dr. Ho and all 150 of his coauthors (with more than 15 pubs):
Total citations: average: 4487, median: 2458, Ho: 2464.
Total papers: avg: 84, med: 67, H: 60.
h-index: avg: 30, med: 26, H: 26.
Top 5 highest citations: 1st: avg: 579, med: 387, H: 388. 2nd: avg: 379, med: 180, H: 326. 3rd: avg: 252, med: 144, H: 193. 4th: avg: 203, med: 131, H: 93. 5th: avg: 171, med: 99, H: 83. JoelleJay (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, given above analysis by JoelleJay and Hannes Röst, the article may be kept per NPROF. Kirtos67 (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the above users, the hundreds of citations of his work meet the NPROF criteria of "significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Furthermore, his involvement with the Bamboo Bike Project constitutes "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". I would suggest including here more information and sources related to the Bamboo Bike Project which mention David Ho (there are more more than a few). The Bamboo Bike Project is undergoing its own AFD discussion, that content could be partially merged into David Ho's article. --Alan Islas (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The citation record (under "David T. Ho") looks good enough for WP:PROF#C1 to me, and the coverage of his bamboo bike side project adds some interest and saves this from being purely "keep because numbers are big". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: . I agree with the above users, the hundreds of citations of his work meet the NPROF criteria; the lad has a big future in climate change, methinks. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Hazrul Shah Abdul Hakim[edit]

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

No games recorded in a fully professional league on Tribuna, Mackolik, Soccerpunter or Soccerway. No assertion or evidence of passing WP:NFOOTBALL.

I could not find any significant coverage of this player and none is cited in the article so I'm concerned that he fails WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 05:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad College of Engineering[edit]

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

No RS to satisfy NSCHOOLS Vikram Vincent 18:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:50, 28 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) 23:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DWARF optimization and duplicate removal tool[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Its a feature in linux that compresses files with a certain file extension. I couldn't find any non-primary sources for the software. One source is an email written by the original developer, the other is a download link.

There is an entry of the software within the official linux manual though, Although I'm not sure if that's considered notable enough.

Daiyusha (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources required to establish notability. The Linux manual is not independent or secondary, nor were any of the other sources I could find. Msnicki (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Msnicki. Kirtos67 (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 06:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad Environmental Conservation Organisation[edit]

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

A college based conservation club that did some minor activities that is not notable Vikram Vincent 18:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 06:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad College of Commerce[edit]

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

A non notable tertiary institute that does not satisfy NSCHOOLS as there are no RS Vikram Vincent 18:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 06:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Another non notable stub that does not satisfy NSCHOOLS and with no RS Vikram Vincent 18:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:31, 28 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) 23:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Yashin Cup[edit]

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 18:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 18:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 06:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad College of Pharmacy[edit]

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

A non-notable stub which relies on a single primary source and no RS to support its existence. Vikram Vincent 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 06:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smt. Kashibai Navale College of Engineering[edit]

Smt. Kashibai Navale College of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS and has no RS. Vikram Vincent 18:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 06:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sou. Venutai Chavan Polytechnic[edit]

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

Non notable diploma providing institution. Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS and has no RS. Vikram Vincent 18:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 18:14, 28 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FMF Cup[edit]

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 17:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found this article, but, looking at the pictures, this has nothing to do with U17 football so is probably just an unrelated tournament organised by the Moldovan Football Federation. U17 friendly tournaments are not inherently notable and there is no evidence of notability here. Fails WP:GNG and looks to fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, so this is part of a deletion nomination of about 12 articles that are about similar. Should have been a combined single AfD. Not at all convinced these articles should go, my extended remarks are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trofeo Cappelli e Ferrania. Herostratus (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Stadion Wals-Siezenheim. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salzburgerland Cup[edit]

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly an option. GiantSnowman 12:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair enough as an WP:ATD. There is one reliable source in the article which would be enough to verify that the tournament happened. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:51, 29 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 22:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coppa Città di Torino[edit]

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 17:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is a mention of a tournament of the same name on the FIFA website but, considering that talks about a match between Juventus and AC Milan and the match was officiated by a referee born in 1882, it is clearly an unrelated tournament. I can't find any suggestion that the friendly tournament that is the subject of this article is notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG, the FIFA search hit does not establish sufficient notability CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reliable sources not found & Non notable. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trofeo Monte Bianco[edit]

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 17:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:58, 28 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trofeo Valle d'Aosta[edit]

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 17:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:54, 28 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Torneo Città di Milano[edit]

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 17:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence this short-run friendly was a notable tournament. StarM 18:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:09, 29 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 Chitkara University, Punjab. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG and WP:NSCHOOL. The only source in which it is covered in detail is an obviously paid piece here. My attempt to boldly redirect to Chitkara University, Punjab was reverted. There is nothing to merge, so proposing Redirect to Chitkara University, Punjab or Delete. Muhandes (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: the above editor is the one who objected the redirect in the first place and seems to have changed their mind, making this entire AFD redundant. --Muhandes (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE- I am suggesting redirect opposed to delete because deletion of article is totally absurd, i objected redirection earlier as i thought this article should exist as a standalone page. that's it!!! --Asterisk7421 (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. It seems like redirect is a better idea than deleting the article as there is already a mention of this article (name) in the redirect page. Iflaq (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 30 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 Righeira discography per WP:PRESERVE, as there is a clear consensus that there should not be an article on this topic, but no argument that the title should not redirect to an article properly mentioning the topic. BD2412 T 19:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bambini Forever[edit]

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

While this group had several hit songs, none of their albums, including this one, appear to meet either WP:GNG, and definitely don't meet WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 TT me 16:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination, the album doesn't qualify NALBUM. Kirtos67 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Righeira discography as is standard procedure in case anyone searches for the album title. Neither this album nor any of its singles made the charts and it received no significant coverage on the music media, at least as can be found in online sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is evidence that an interested editor keeps reverting redirects for this band's articles, so Protect against reversion of the redirect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 30 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. BD2412 T 19:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XCade[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The WP:VG/RS custom Google searches returned 0 sources. A standard Google search found a handful of trivial mentions but plenty of unreliable sources like forum posts, social media, YouTube, and mirrors of this article. Woodroar (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I couldn't find any material in reliable sources, Google Scholar, or Newspapers.com. There are passing mentions in two books (via Google Books) but nothing even close to significant coverage. IceWelder [✉] 16:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very old article, and it shows. No significant coverage outside trivial mentions in citations for other, unrelated topics. Nothing to redirect to, either. Namcokid47 22:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well, Shareware is passé, as is software for Palm OS. This is very old, and superseded by new apps and new iterations of Linux, etc. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)D[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Rose Wiesel[edit]

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

non-notable actress, perhaps too soon but there is no meaningful coverage, it's all interviews and press releases (or blackhat SEO) and she hasn't held any major TV/film roles, just repeated unnamed background characters. VAXIDICAE💉 14:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:01, 28 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 under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanat Sawant[edit]

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

Contest PROD by IP user. Subject clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN; no songs or albums in the charts at any point, no significant accolades, no significant influence within field/genre, has no entries in any reputable encyclopaedias. Fails GNG as has zero coverage outside of his own press releases. This article was protected from creation last year as a pre-emptive measure due to persistent sockpuppetry relating to Sawant in draft space. This protection was recently lifted. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt and consider lodging the creating editor in a new SPI. Nom has covered everything. Picture is up for deletion on Commons. Fiddle Faddle 15:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that all of the other edits were done while logged out. I can't find any other accounts linked with this one. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under WP:G11 as this is a vanity page. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GPL93 As long as it is salted. Otherwise AfD gives us a G5 opportunity to keep this material off Wikipedia Fiddle Faddle 17:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent - Nope - "A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: per G11. Currently only serves Promo, would neet to be rewritten entirely. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've tagged this as G11 as I agree with the above comments. If that IP sock removes the tag, please restore it. Thanks. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just semi-protected the article for 24 hours because of persistent edits by IP addresses, which appear to be the article creator evading his block. —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every Reference is included I think it is important to keep this entity as he’s already famous in most of the nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:6:A0B7:1823:3DDC:F023:13F1 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The IP is not only a single-purpose editor, but is a presumptive sockpuppet of the original editor. —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad Technical Education Society[edit]

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

Had to clean up a tonne of advertising cruft. Wikipedia ain't a web host for non notable cruft. RS missing. Fails NSCHOOLS. Vikram Vincent 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:57, 28 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, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions: 2013-10 NBN school of engineering no consensus
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SoX[edit]

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

Audio editing software. Unclear notability (WP:GNG). Cites no third-party sources, and a Google search finds no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 12:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:52, 28 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 15:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Halzle[edit]

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

Meets neither WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 TT me 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nom. There's a smattering of "transactional" coverage discussing his hire as an assistant coach, but you'd expect that of all assistant coaches. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 14:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Fails WP:GNG + WP:NCOLLATH CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad Institute Of Management[edit]

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

Had to throw out a tonne of advertising cruft. Org fails NSCHOOL. No RS found. Created by a SPA. Vikram Vincent 12:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji Institute of International Business[edit]

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

The page post clean up does not satisfy WP:HEY. Org does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS. RS missing with a BEFORE. Relied upon primary sources, paid adverts, press releases. Creator is a SPA. Vikram Vincent 12:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:26, 28 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. Sandstein 11:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Knickerbocker[edit]

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

A similar article at this title was previously deleted, and this new article was tagged with WP:G4, but the source used in the new version post-dates that deletion discussion so I've declined the speedy tag and am nominating here for a new discussion. I can't find any indication that GNG or NACTOR are satisfied: I can find UGC fan-site coverage of the subject, but only passing mentions in RS. GirthSummit (blether) 12:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 12:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 12:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per non, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. --John B123 (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per non, fails WP:NACTOR -- Alexf(talk) 10:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BASIC due to insufficient sources and no indication of meeting WP:NACTOR. Beccaynr (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Striking !vote per Dream Focus comments below. Beccaynr (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NACTOR. It's not enough to show that a voice actor exists, they must be notable. The subject does not approach this bar. Ifnord (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD I find this https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=135490 where it says (2016) Won Staff Choice Award & People's Choice Award for Breakthrough Voice Actress of the Year at 4th Annual BTVA Anime Dub Awards So that's one notable award, I not sure about the other one. Meets the subject specific guidelines for voice actors found at WP:ENTERTAINER, #1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Notice the roles that are bold are major/main characters in the notable anime she did voice work in. Dream Focus 16:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see that category listed on the article's page and while "multiple" is up to interpretation, I would contend she's only been the major character in very few productions. WP:TOOSOON, IMHO. Ifnord (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple means more than one, always has, always will. Been discussed many times in many places. Few is still multiple, it more than one. And the Too Soon essay is about someone only mentioned as being in something in the future, not that they have already been in plenty of things already. Dream Focus 03:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Keep, per Dream Focus and Beccaynr, they appear to be notable. Link20XX (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ENT, and because I redoubled my efforts to find sources, and have added references and information about additional works that were not previously included; she has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, [...] or other productions, including video games. It also seems relevant that so much of her filmography is linked to other Wikipedia articles - while her article is currently tagged as an orphan, I have been able to de-orphan it by bluelinking where her name already appears, and there is a lot more work to do. Beccaynr (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC) As I review and update the linked articles, it also appears that per WP:ENT, she has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following because she has been a featured guest of a variety of conventions, i.e. in 2019: Daisho Con, Setsucon, ColossalCon, and Youmacon, as well as SacAnime in 2020. Beccaynr (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC) And there appear to be additional conventions. Beccaynr (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough reliable and independent sources to justify an article at this time. Would support drafting the article. Most sources are only series announcements and fan sites. Esw01407 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the Anime News Network articles are more than annoucements, because they help independently and reliably document her significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows; it also appears that additional sources documenting her prolific career WP:NEXIST based on the links to other Wikipedia articles, which have not yet all been incorporated into the article (I have made it about halfway through, and all of her works are not currently listed in her article); in addition, the subculture websites finding her worthy of notice help show she has a large fan base and provide further evidence of the significance of some of her roles, based on the how the writers highlight them, e.g. Animation for Adults, reporting on her award and one of her roles: "Breakthrough actress (both staff and fan pick) went to Brianna Knickerbocker (Durarara!! x2)," ConFreaks & Geeks, describing her as "a multi-talented entertainer who's best known as the English voice of Rem from Re:Zero: Starting Life in Another World. Brianna also has a starring role as Rin in the upcoming Catherine: Full Body on PlayStation 4, an enhanced version of 2011’s Catherine. She was recently a guest of honor at Animanga 2019 in Pomona, CA," and Culture of Gaming, "[...] Some of her roles Rin from Catherine: Full Body, Rita Bernal from Mobile Suit Gundam Narrative, Sakura & Charlotte from Fire Emblem Fates, and Filo from The Rising of Shield Hero. She has an impressive body of work and will be playing Ling Shenhua in Shenmue III next year. [...]." There is also this VoyageLA interview highlighting her music career. Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC) I've also found sources for her starring role in Carole & Tuesday, including from Monsters and Critics 1, and three reviews 2, 3, 4, as well as references for a recent video game where she voices a significant role from Inverse 5 and Yahoo!News 6, and a reference for a previous video game from GameSpot 7. Beccaynr (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC) I've continued to find sources on subculture (not fandom) websites, by searching her name and various works, including one from 2017 about two video games she voices, describing her as "a rising, shining star in the video game and anime voice acting community. Last year, she lent her voice to Fire Emblem Fates’ Princess Sakura and Charlotte. This year, she continues her exemplary work in Fire Emblem Heroes, where she reprises her role of Sakura and also voices Ninian and Est," and others noting the popularity of other works where she has had a significant role 1, 2, as well as a brief review of her work 3 in another significant role. Beccaynr (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dream Focus. Looks to be somewhat notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Bass Day[edit]

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

Likely hoax (pre April 1), no reliable independent sources WWGB (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searching "30.3., Basovski dan" as well as "World Bass Day" only comes up with Wikipedia, mirrors of Wikipedia and the group's own Facebook page. If this is to pass WP:GNG, there should be plenty of reliable news coverage but there isn't. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against deletion. World Bass Day is celebrated in choral singers community since 1996 - and is definitely not "a hoax". Various banquets and celebrations are held every year on March 30, and WBD is definitely a notbale minor observation. I advise those promoting deletion to consult with experts in choral singing before taking any action. B15563T5 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you provide multiple reliable sources demonstrating that this warrants a stand-alone article in an encyclopaedia? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. World Bass Day is just a couple of days away from its 25th celebration - it would be a shame to delete a wikipedia entry of this time-honored festivity just because someone (who I presume is not a singer) can. KAP Jasa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— KAP Jasa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this isn't a hoax, then it falls incredibly short of WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and GPL93. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG, seems to be a hoax anyway CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Likely hoax that is created by someone who is now indef'd for socking. No improvements have been made to the article since this listing either. Delete please. --Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 18:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no input from other users. North America1000 05:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social Finance (consultancy)[edit]

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

Promotional article. While it looks like there are a lot of good sources here, the primary subject of all the RS listed is Social Impact Bonds, the policy this firm is promoting. They thus all fail WP:CORPDEPTH Mottezen (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 28 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 12:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Bass Sciences[edit]

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

Likely hoax (pre April 1), no reliable independent sources WWGB (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't even find one reference from a reliable & independent source; fails WP:NORG. If this organisation exists, it's certainly not notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion. The Institute for Bass Sciences was founded in 1996 and its research papers have been published in various journals, e.g. the International Choral Bulletin. The management of the Great Bass Choir, the instigation of writing and composing the Ode to Basses (all clearly referenced in the article!), the provenance of its members (mostly basses from world-class choirs as the APZ Tone Tomšič etc.) clearly show that the Institute is not "a hoax". Deletion would be frivolous and based on ignorance, none of which conform to Wikipedia deletion policy. I advise those promoting deletion to consult with experts in choral singing before taking any action.

Additionally, I am appaled by the attitude of certain editors attacking new contrubutors, labeling their legitimate contributions as "likely April 1st hoaxes" and deleting their sincere and corteous explanations by rude remarks such as "begone!"B15563T5 (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:ORGCRIT, please provide significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. As an occasional contributor to IBS's research I resent the notion of an "April 1st hoax". (disclaimer - I am a personal friend of the creator of this article and can vouch for his expertise) KAP Jasa — Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— KAP Jasa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether it's a hoax or not (and it sure does smell like one), it's completely unverified, and unverifiable, as search returns only self-published 'sources'. Fails notability with flying colours. Could've been speedied, IMO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honestly this should be speedy deleted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not satisfy WP:NORG. No RS to support notability. Vikram Vincent 13:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Najib Kilani[edit]

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

DEPRODed because of allegedly several awards received, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BEFORE gave me only catalog entries of some of his books, no prove of any award received nor reviews of his works. The 2 sources are CAT Entries of his books, 1 source is unrelated. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 11:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No comment for article. But the author seems notable to me. 2000+ worldcat librray holding. Several non-English full-length critical works exist about his work. --Gazal world (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep There are claims of notability in the article and the same in this other language article My search returned several hits. While the article does need improved references, I think they are available. Jeepday (talk) 18:11, 19 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 13:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Published literary study in his work here, profiled in Al Jazeera here, researchgate paper comparing his work with other writers here as well as plenty of other sources in Arabic I’m not up to ploughing through. Mccapra (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the existence of multiple independent reliable sources. And I would like to remind editors that while English language sources are preferred, they are not required. Being an English-language Wikipedia means only that we write articles in English, not that we are limited to English language subjects or sources. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:40, 28 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. Paying particular attention to those who assessed the topic after the page's significant expansion (all arguing for a "keep" outcome), there is a consensus that GNG is met. (non-admin closure) — Bilorv (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinook Display Team[edit]

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

Non notable single aircraft display team - most air forces have single aircraft disoplay teams and the Royal Air Force normally has three or four officially nominated every year (for at least 40 years) and of all the many single aircraft displays it is very rare to be of any note and previous teams have been deleted before for not being notable for inclusion MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have three online meetings this afternoon and I'm already late for the UK Wikimeet. See WP:CHOICE, "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." And now I was just interrupted by someone at the door chasing the census return. No peace for the wicked... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well that is what I was thinking, since you found more refs you should be fixing the article to the point where it passes WP:GNG, instead of expecting other editors to do the work. As it stands, the article does not pass GNG, so with an indication there may be refs out there, unless it gets fixed so it does, I would support sending it to drafts for more work, since it is not ready for mainspace right now. - Ahunt (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:NEXIST which explains that "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question". See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that was exactly my point. If this book does make the subject notable enough to pass GNG, but is not currently used as a ref in the article, then the article should be kept, but moved to "drafts" until the article is updated to incorporate the ref. I would update the article myself, but I don't have the book, so can't tell you what in it might be of use. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would not address the nominator's argument, which is that the team should be deleted because it only has a single aircraft. The fact that it's an official display team of the RAF, has been covered by the BBC and had a book written about it impresses the nominator not at all. He still doesn't like it. Me, I'm fine with it, have supported my position by reference to multiple policies and so my !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note, I am not trying to get you to change your !vote. In fact I think we both agree that this book ref may indeed show that the subject is notable, but that, as it stands, the article is not sufficiently well-referenced to stay in mainspace. I haven't decided which way I will !vote yet, this discussion is all part of my examination of the issues. If the article does get deleted as "not worthy of an article" then further consideration is moot. If it is moved to drafts as "possibly notable, but not ready for mainspace", then that would seem a sensible outcome based on what we have right now. If is is just "kept as-is", then further action will be required, either adding some non-primary refs or moving it to drafts for more work. Right now I could be easily swayed towards "keep", if someone can add some serious refs, but that hasn't happened yet. - Ahunt (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With all due respect, you really should read the policies that Andrew cited. What you are suggesting is simply not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The guidelines are very clear that we are not to delete articles simply based on their current state or because known existing sources have not been added yet. The existence of references is what determines notability, even if they have not yet been added to the article. You are welcome to vote however you wish, but please be sure to base your voted on what Wikipedia guidelines actually advise. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you read what I wrote. I am not supporting deleting the article at this point in time, I have suggested that if it only has primary refs then it should be moved to drafts or if third party refs are added it should be kept. What I have suggested is entirely in keeping with Wikipedia policy. You can also note that the article now contains one third-party ref from the BBC. It is a bit of a weak ref, though, as it is just a video report and contains some obvious inaccuracies, but it is a start. Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So no more noteworthy really then all the other tens of single aircraft display aircraft flown for many years, the RAF has at least three or four official teams every year that can be just as impressive. If you think the book is really noteworthy then perhaps that should be the subject of an article. 12:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)MilborneOne (talk)
As a general rule, we usually advise people against using "but there's an article on this other subject" as an argument for Keep. The converse is probably true as well, the lack of articles for other display teams is not an argument for Delete. It may be that no one has bothered to create those pages. It could be that this display team has more coverage than other display teams. The question is, do we have sufficient coverage from reliable sources to establish notability? Hyperion35 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RIAT is the world's largest military air show, but what does that have to do with notability of this display team? Mztourist (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, they participated at the most famous military air show. The coverage they get confirms notability. Google news search for their official name, Royal Air Force Aerobatic, shows coverage of them around the world wherever they will be ad, and about their red arrow displays and other things they do. Dream Focus 15:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, the Red Arrows are a separate display team (they fly the BAE Hawk, if I remember correctly). Still, the fact that this team flies at RIAT and other air shows alongside famous teams like the Red Arrows should mean that there's some good coverage in various reliable sources, which is the important thing. Hyperion35 (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No-one questions the notability of RIAT. The fact that the Chinook Display Team performs at RIAT is only relevant if there is significant coverage of it. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Importance and notability are crystal clear. There is no case whatsoever for deleting this article. gidonb (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article has been significantly expanded since the nom. Has plenty of SIGCOV in RS to meet WP:GNG. All the 'keep' !votes above make additional good arguments as well. Also, as the OP has pointed out; "the Royal Air Force normally has three or four officially nominated [display teams] every year (for at least 40 years)", so it certainly seems like a worthy article to have. - wolf 19:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Games: Melbourne 2006 Opening Ceremony[edit]

Commonwealth Games: Melbourne 2006 Opening Ceremony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable album or have received independent coverage from any reliable source. The closing ceremony also has an article(Commonwealth Games: Melbourne 2006 Closing Ceremony). I can't seem to find any source to signify notability. Meanderingbartender (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Meanderingbartender (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Meanderingbartender (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Adumbrativus. Deus et lex (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am happy with a Keep here per some of the comments below. Deus et lex (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This album was certified gold. [20]. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and add the gold certification. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It also charted on ARIA Albums Chart (ref now in article). Described/analysed in source (now added). Known by alternate titles (now added). I have also added further content.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)00:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further conversation about keeping as stand-alone versus merger welcome
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 15:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per previous relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets no. 2 and 3 of WP:NMUSIC as appearing on Oz major music chart (ARIA), and receiving gold certification. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Rajuiu (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella High School[edit]

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

K-12 school. Two sources in the article are database reports with statistics. BEFORE showed only mill coverage (sports scores) in local papers. No SIGCOV with direct and indepth coverage. Does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT. No district page for redirect, no objection to redirect to community page if there is consensus  // Timothy :: talk  09:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  09:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  09:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need more substantial sourcing than this to show that an institution is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks as though there is some extremely trivial run of the mill mentions of this school in the news about games being canceled due to COVID and a couple of listings in school directory, but nothing that pass WP:NORG or otherwise make it notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Mims, Elizabeth (1932-10-27). "Isabella High School News". The Union-Banner. Archived from the original on 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2021-03-15 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article discusses the school's planned gymnasium, its football team, school debates, the school paper, and the play Miss Adventure.

    2. "Isabella High School". The Union-Banner. 1932-11-07. Archived from the original on 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2021-03-15 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article discusses Isabella High School news such as work in the library to classify books and magazines, a sports game with Verbena, the home economics club, , and the play "Miss Adventure" the school put on.

    3. "Isabella Lunchroom & Home-Economics Additions". The Union-Banner. 1960-08-04. Archived from the original on 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2021-03-15 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article discusses the renovations made to Isabella High School.

    4. "Chilton School Wing Destroyed By Fire Saturday". Montgomery Advertiser. 1988-02-22. Archived from the original on 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2021-03-15 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes that Isabella High School is in rural Chilton County and serves 450 students from kindergarten through grade 12. A wing of the school that had been in use since at least 1936 was ravaged by a fire. 10 classrooms for kindergarten to fifth grade were damaged. An auditorium, library, science laboratory, and offices were ravaged.

    5. Richards, Anthony (2019-04-23). "IHS facility named in honor of Curtis Smith". The Clanton Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2021-03-15.

      The article notes, "Isabella High School christened its new all-purpose facility during a ceremony on April 22. The building will be named the Curtis V. Smith P.E. Facility in honor of the longtime Isabella resident and community leader." The article notes that Smith was a principal at Isabella High school. His tenure was 6.5 years. His wife was a 23-year first-grade teacher at the school.

    6. "Our Opinion: Help for Isabella". 1988-02-29. Archived from the original on 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2021-03-15 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes that Isabella School experienced a fire that was "such a devastating blow to the community and the area". The fire ravaged ten classrooms, the science lab, the library, and the auditorium. The article notes that "the community has vowed to rebuild the school: more than 500 people attended a community meeting shortly after the fire and contributed more than $4,000 for supplies to get the school back in operation."

    7. Rawls, Phillip (1977-01-16). "American Company Takes Live Theater to Schools". Montgomery Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2021-03-15 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes, "But to 200 Isabella High School students who had just watched real, live theater, the American Company was the definition of magic and happiness. Isabella High School is an old-fashioned looking wooden school in rural Chilton County, and according to one teacher, live theater is about as rare there as snow."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Isabella High School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you know, there was recently an RfC which determined that subject specific notability guidelines take precedent over WP:GNG. It doesn't matter if it's a private or public organization. It's still an organization. So in this case the subject specific notability guidelines that it needs to pass are WP:ORG. Period. Since that's clearly what the consensus about it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isabella High School passes the subject-specific notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools. Cunard (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Clearly the sources provided above are normal routine mill coverage, the type any school in the United States would receive; they don't demonstate notability, they show this is a normal average high school. None of it meets either ORGCRIT or GNG. If the above was considered enough to meet guidelines, then all high schools in the United States (and probably most schools in general) would automatically be notable.  // Timothy :: talk  05:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 15:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is not quite there yet. More evaluations of above sources by others would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard. As I said just hours ago outside of AfD, I'm not really a fan of the push to move the goalposts that schools which pass notability criteria fail by a tenuous definition of 'routine coverage'. Happy to take this level of coverage, which is enough to write an article of respectable size and interesting information -- exactly the thing Wikipedia notability standards are intended to gauge. Vaticidalprophet 23:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines and standards change over time. That's just how this works. It's ridiculous, and actually moving the goal post, to think that everything in Wikipedia is or should be exactly how it was 15 years ago. Let alone to "vote" based on past, depreciated and no longer accepted standards. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:32, 31 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Records[edit]

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

This is a company/organization and the appropriate SNG is WP:NCORP. The key requirement is sources to establish notability and I am unable to locate a single source that meets the requirements. One reference from "The Minnesota Daily" is based entirely on an interview with the "founder", is an advertorial, and fails WP:ORGIND. Notability is not inherited, for this topic to be notable there must be sources that deal directly with this topic. The previous AfD mentions WP:NMUSIC but this is not applicable for record labels. (Note: the last AfD was withdrawn by the previous nominator) HighKing++ 12:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 12:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 12:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 12:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging previous participants Mottezen, Spiderone, Chubbles, 78.26 HighKing++ 12:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this fails NCORP and GNG notability guidelines. I was wondering if, as an alternative to deletion, whether there is any scope for converting the article into something like List of Afternoon Records artists? I believe that it may satisfy WP:LISTPURP as a navigational list because of the high number of blue links. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, creating a list article from the material here would be a new article but wouldn't preserve this article and wouldn't preserve the history of this article. Creating a list article isn't an alternative to deletion on the merits of the current topic. HighKing++ 14:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet any of our most minimal guidelines for article inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the previous nominator who withdrew the nomination. I had been swayed by some keep votes to keep and try to expand this article instead. However, all the sources mostly heap praise on the founder instead of talking about the actual company. I realized I couldn't expand this article without making it promotional, so I was going to re-nominate it eventually. Thank you for pre-empting me. Mottezen (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as before. CORP neither is nor should be the default SNG for record labels, and as I have noted many times, WP:MUSIC (which is a much more commonsensical place to look for guidance on the importance of music-related topics) has language suggesting how to judge the importance of labels. The label's roster included output from a number of noteworthy artists (Haley Bonar, We Shot the Moon, Bad Bad Hats, Now Now, John Vanderslice, and others); the very idea that we might want to try and convert this into a list article (which, for all intents and purposes, many label articles more or less are, and sensibly so) indicates that there is encyclopedic interest in noting the tie that binds these artists together. Without this article, we lose the ability to tell that encyclopedic story and the collective impact that the label, by releasing music from these musicians, had on art and culture. NOTINHERITED is a red herring here; this was ably addressed by 78.26 in the 2nd deletion (mind you, this article has been nominated for deletion three times in ten days). We have at least three minimally viable sources; the MPR piece is substantial, the Minnesota Daily I addressed in AfD2, and the Billboard piece is an invited interview conducted by a Billboard editor. It's justifiably considered one of the more important indie labels in the sense used at WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the MPR piece is about the founder and his multiple projects so fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and the Billboard piece fails WP:INDY as it was written by the founder. Mottezen (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have some sympathy for your opinion and I also think that CORP sucks for a range of companies which have an artistic element to their output/service/etc. But until and unless the guidelines change, we're stuck with it. But I reject your assertion that NOTINHERITED is a red herring or that it was "dealt with". It hasn't been dealt with at all and even your opinion above attempts to demonstrate notability by pointing to this company's links to .. "noteworthy artists". Finally, if NCORP is the applicable SNG (and it is, your opinion and my sympathy aside) then no, you don't have "three minimally viable sources" either, they fail ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 11:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the strength of the MPR article (>1400 words) which is about the founder and his projects, which are interrelated and related to his label. Kablammo (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not "about" the founder, it's based entirely on an interview "with" the founder and since there is no "Independent Content" as per ORGIND, it fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 11:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. This means it is our job to apply policies and guidelines in a way that best serves Wikipedia's purpose. Fortunately Wikipedia is also not anarchy, where precident and policy have no meaning. We have WP:IAR as a pillar, which in this case allows us to decide whether this topic furthers the quality of Wikipedia, or inhibits it. Therefore, we should consider how these policies apply to the topic at hand, through WP:Consensus. In other words, we need to ensure that the policies serve Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia does not serve policies. So if "CORP sucks" in this case, and inhibits building an encyclopedia, then that policy shouldn't be applied in this instance. If CORP helps remove unencyclopedic, promotional content in this instance, then it has done its job well.

Therefore, how does this topic fit within Wikipedia's goal, and how do the policies support? WP:GNG designed to support Wikipedia in several ways, among them avoiding plagarism (copying from a single voice, no matter if in-depth and reliable), giving a neutral point of view (even reliable sources can have strong points of view) by combining different viewpoints. GNG's question can be summed up as "Can we build a neutrally worded article about the topic, with enough information to be more than a sub-stub (dictionary definition)?" As we have become the go-to site for information, many with goals divergent from Wikipedia's attempt (and unfortunately succeed too often) in using Wikipedia for their own purposes, often for financial gain. Therefore we constantly are bombarded with edits which purport to be encyclopedic, but whose goals are promotional in nature. NCORP was developed as a more strict guideline to further strain out truly encyclopedic topics from the flow of business "news". If so, do we apply NCORP, because as an ongoing commercial concern the content of the article promotes the offerings of the topic?

GNG is an all-purpose notability guideline, and is particularly useful because the community may not have expertise in a given area. This is where SNG are helpful, because they are usually more specific regarding how a subject may be notable within its area. Despite several attempts, mostly because of lack of participation, the community has failed to articulate a SNG for record labels, which are tricky because they are both a corporation and produce art. The closest thing we have is the fifth point of WP:NMUSIC. If a record label has produced art by several notable artists ("several" being undefined), then it stands to reason that the label has had an impact upon art and culture, within a genre or a region. It therefore stands to reason that said label is worthy of encyclopedic attention. Where the line is drawn regarding notable artists and degree of influence has varied from dicussion to discussion We also need to be wary of WP:Walled gardens regarding notable artists. In these cases I do give attention to editors such as Chubbles, who have demonstrated an expertise of musical topics over a long period of time.

My opinion on this particular topic is that it improves the encyclopedia, if only slightly. Mostly the article is neutrally worded, and it gives information of use to those who are musicologists or collectors of music. The fact that Minnesota Public Radio has singled it out for attention is important. Not all "interviews" are equal, and MPR has a much better reputation for fact-checking than your average blog. There is certainly about the label itself there. Billboard isn't the source it once was, but still not every yahoo who starts a label is featured in its pages. Calling all the articles "local interest" ignores that Minneapolis/St. Paul is one of the major metropolitan areas, and there has been persistent coverage of the label there. Put together with the number of notable bands that this label has been responsible for (and perhaps vice-versa), I believe the foregoing shows a degree of artistic presence that merits encyclopedic attention. Regarding promotion, perhaps the discography should be removed (and I say that as someone who spends a lot of time at discography), because as an ongoing commercial concern, it might appear that we are promoting its catalog. That discussion can take place at the talk page, however. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 15:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point of order re: Warner, the article tried to inherit notability, but in fact the sources didn't even mention Warner. It's a distribution deal, which means the label likely has wider availabililty than just Minnesota, but it's not corporately part of the Warner conglomerate. I've fixed the wording regarding Warner because it was wrong, and unsourced. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a lot of !votes for Keeping above but the logic behind the "Keep" boils down to IAR and/or that NCORP isn't the most appropriate SNG for music-company-related topics. There's a few who are arguing that the MBR article is "in-depth" but it undeniably fails ORGIND as it relies entirely on an interview and information provided by that individual and/or the company. There's an understandable reluctance to "close" this AfD, it has been open for a month now. Can I suggest that a discussion takes place either at the Talk page of NCORP (preferable) or at the Talk page of NMUSIC to discuss the arguments why NCORP is not a suitable SNG for "artistic" companies? I believe there is a growing consensus that "artistic" companies needs some better guidelines and that deleting articles like this one may not serve the project as intended. HighKing++ 12:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billingsley High School[edit]

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

K-12 school, Single source in article is to a government database report, BEFORE showed no SIGCOV with direct and indepth coverage (mill coverage of sports scores in local paper). Article does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT. No school district article exists. No objection to a redirect to town article if there is a consensus.  // Timothy :: talk  09:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  09:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  09:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing even close to the level of sources we need to have an article. There is just not coverage out there to justify having articles on every school in the world that instructs at the level that in the US is considered high school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - BEFORE doesn't mean "type the current school name in Google. If nothing good comes up, delete." This is a rural area, but there are newspapers there, and to think that no coverage exists on a school that once burnt down, and has been rebuilt twice since then, has won two state athletic championships and had a staff member win a statewide honor is, well, ludicrous. The scope of sources doesn't end at the end of Google. There are hundreds of smaller papers that have not been digitized at all. Wikipedia's scope doesn't end at encyclopedia, either. We are also a gazetteer and an almanac. This should be kept, but even if there were no chance of a viable article here, the title should be redirected, not deleted. 174.254.192.241 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's actually news coverage of this school from local outlets on Google News. So, I'm not sure what the IP user is talking about. My guess is they didn't bother to look and just assumed there wasn't because "small town" or something. The issue is that the existing coverage is extremely trivial and doesn't pass WP:NORG. That would also go for any potential articles about the school "burning down" as it does for anything else that there is available coverage on. Plus, there has to be at least coverage in a regional or national outlet for notability to be a thing anyway and I'm just not seeing it. It would be hard to argue that is simply because of a regional or national paper not being digitized. Compared to just because something like a fire at a small town high school is trivial enough that isn't worth a national outlet covering. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cite policy for your claim that before a school is notable, it must be covered nationally. That too is ludicrous. 174.254.192.241 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. So, I'm good. Although, WP:AUD does say "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." Which to me means just local sources doesn't work for notability. Your free to interpret it how you want though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In previous practice there had been requests for elementary and middle schools to have "national" level coverage to be included, but high schools were let by with local sourcing. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Knight, Barbara. (1998-10-25). "Billingsley getting great present for 100th birthday" (pages 1 and 2). The Prattville Progress. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2021-03-15 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes that Billingsley School had a centennial in 1998. When the school opened, the schedule was influenced by the agricultural calendar. In October 1998, the school started work on a $8.2 million campus. The school's principal, Van Smith, studied at Billinglsey, where he received a high school diploma in 1971. His father graduated in 1936 and his two sons graduated in 1995 and 1998. His mother was a Billinglsey teacher for three decades. In the early part of the twentieth century, the school kept is classroom heated through firewood provided by parents. Students had to fetch water and cut the firewood for the wood stove. The school started in 1898 as a "the first one-room school in Billingsley". The people who spearheaded the school's creation were Dr. A.J. Marlar, T.L. Patrick, W.I. Gandy, and W.W. Carter. The school was first based on a Baptist Church property. The school's next building was constructed in 1906. In Fall 1932, the school building was ravaged by a fire. The students resumed their classes that year in the Methodist Church and the Masonic Hall. The school was rebuilt during the Great Depression.

    2. "Billingsley: School continues to thrive". Montgomery Advertiser. 1998-11-04. Archived from the original on 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2021-03-15 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes that Billingsley School had a centennial in 1998. The school is on 104,000-square-foot lot. The school spent $8.2 million to construct a new campus.

    3. Jackson, John. (1987-09-09). "50 years later, Billingsley School is showing age, outgrowing space" (pages 1 and 2). Alabama Journal. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2021-03-15 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article discusses Billingsley School. The article notes, "Billingsley School, which serves about 540 Autauga County students, is something of a rarity in modern public education. One schooll serves youngsters in kindergarten through grade 12." The article notes that the school building was built in the 1930s, two additional buildings were constructed in the 1930s, and a gym was added in 1961. The article notes that "Billingsley is a school that is showing its age and has outgrown its campus".

    4. Plunkett, David. (1987-12-12). "Billingsley School parents face battle seeking 'sound of music'" (pages 1 and 2). The Prattville Progress. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2021-03-15 – via Newspapers.com.
    5. "Billingsley prom is fantasy". Montgomery Advertiser. 2004-04-26. Archived from the original on 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2021-03-15 – via Newspapers.com.
    6. Sellers, Christie K. (2000-09-02). "Billingsley reels in science tanks". The Prattville Progress. Archived from the original on 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2021-03-15 – via Newspapers.com.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Billingsley High School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you know, there was recently an RfC which determined that subject specific notability guidelines take precedent over WP:GNG. It doesn't matter if it's a private or public organization. It's still an organization. So in this case the subject specific notability guidelines are WP:ORG. Period. Since that's clearly what the consensus about it is.--Adamant1 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Billingsley High School passes the subject-specific notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools. Cunard (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Clearly the sources provided above are normal routine mill coverage, the type any school in the United States would receive; they don't demonstate notability, they show this is a normal average high school. None of it meets either ORGCRIT or GNG. If the above was considered enough to meet guidelines, then all high schools in the United States (and probably most schools in general) would automatically be notable.  // Timothy :: talk  05:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a requirement that what is in the articles is "notable" though and no one is going to argue that "Billingsley School parents face battle seeking 'sound of music'" is in any way notable as a topic. Anymore then what restaurant a random person went to on the weekend would be just because it's mentioned in TMZ or some other gossip outlet. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the excellent work by Cunard. The sources provided are definitely reliable secondary sources. However, it is debatable as to whether these sources are independent. Montgomery, Alabama, is located in the Southeast end of one county, but this school is located in the northeast end of the neighboring northwest county. That makes it hard to tell whether we can dismiss these references on the grounds that they are local sources. There are plenty of schools that are unambiguously unnotable, but this likely isn't one of them. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 15:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment on Isabella High School, considering everyone else apparently copy-pasted their objections as well. Vaticidalprophet 23:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article in its current form won't pass WP:GNG. If someone wants to improve it to WP:HEY standard then I can reconsider. Considering the news report, a redirect to Billingsley, Alabama, where I made a brief mention, might be appropriate. Vikram Vincent 13:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current form of an article has no bearing on its notability. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Barbusca[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NACTOR, and poorly sourced content. Frontman830 (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Frontman830 (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable actor who was one of the main stars of a TV show, The Mick. RS include [21][22][23]. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, there are number of unreliable source such as YouTube, which may not be used for notability. --Frontman830 (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a number of "not very unreliable sources" doesn't mean the subject isn't notable enough. WP:GNG states that "there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 15:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 15:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:03, 28 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. Despite having ben relisted twice, there is no clear consensus for either "keep" or "delete". Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunder Deep Group of Institutions[edit]

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

Not notable and no reliable sources present. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I cannot find any data to show it is a degree awarding institution. Vikram Vincent 14:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article and its website certainly say it is! There's a long list of degrees in the article. Why do you think it isn't? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Necrothesp I think you are voting without reading anything written. The article clearly states, It is affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University and Chaudhary Charan Singh University. I would suggest that you please verify the fact before voting as you are stating a non-existant point as if it were a fact. Vikram Vincent 16:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I can assure you that I am not. By "degree-awarding institution" we mean any college that teaches to degree level, not specifically only those that award their own degrees (this would, for instance, rule out British polytechnics, which did not award their own degrees). This has always been the case. Affiliated colleges still meet the criteria. This status is, of course, particularly common for colleges in India, and many of them have been kept on this basis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Can you please link that guidelines which equates "degree-awarding" to "teaching at degree level". In India, we actually have private institutions which *do* award degrees and these are called private deemed universities. This and other AFDs you have been !voting on do not come under that category. Vikram Vincent 16:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I have said, this is consensus and has been applied many times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 19:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be suggesting that consensus is irrelevant! Not sure where you got that one from. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{outcomes}} tag :-) Vikram Vincent 14:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is never irrelevant. It's the whole basis of how we do things on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just glancing over the nominations of this type by Vincentvikram so far, I think we are at two or three closed and all of them have closed as delete. There's been several other nominations of the same type by other users in the past couple of days that have closed as delete also. So, that sounds like a clear consensus that 1. Sourcing matters 2. Your opinion that it doesn't is not the consensus. And that's just in like the last week with the ones I've been paying attention to. I'm sure you will discount those as not being consensus based outcomes though for some reason, just like you have the guidelines and RfC, and continue to dig your heals into the notion that your correct because "experience" and "how things were done 10 years ago" Etc. Etc. In the meantime, the current facts of the matter are clearly against your "experience" and you cut and pasting the same keep message everywhere isn't effective. So why not just skip it and provide a couple of reliable in-depth sources so these articles can be legitimately kept instead? I'm more then willing to change my vote to keep if anyone does. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Vincentvikram is randomly nominating articles without any solid statement. I noticed, he provided almost same reason (Notability and non Reliable Sources) for all articles nominated for deletion. It seems like his edits are not constructive on Wikipedia. DMySon 17:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Article seems to be non-notable without the presence of any reliable source. Pranhita (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Here is my argument for similar institutions. DMySon 18:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Private colleges have to be notable like any other private organization. They don't get a special pass when it comes to notability just for being "degree awarding" or whatever. In this case, there is not enough adequate sourcing for the article to be notable enough to warrant keeping it. Period. Otherwise, if someone wants to provide WP:THREE good sources that follow the relevant guidelines I'm happy to change my vote to keep. I couldn't find any myself though and I haven't seen anyone who thinks the article should be kept provide any either. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:19, 28 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) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvie Kreusch[edit]

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

Music PR, notability lacking, product of paid editing: see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jacobmcpherson_paid_editing Acousmana (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBis: nz talk 18:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - She is young, but already received notability (see: refs in Vogue IT, UA, RU, FR + The New York Times (more than once) + Washington Post + received Red Bull Elektropedia Awards: Most Promising Artist 2018. She has performed in her own country, on international festivals, recorded discs (solo and in groups), and recorded high visibility videos (yt statistics: 96,607 views since 23 Oct.). I would give her (young artist) and us - to keep monitoring and adjusting when necessary - this article. p.s. I've adjusted the articles: style + refs since the nomination of deletion. It presents a different quality now, more credible refs and was not written from marketing related context. - Lantuszka (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has fans, streams, social media. The article needs to be copyedited. scope_creepTalk 14:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. Vikram Vincent 13:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gudur Narayana Reddy[edit]

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

A politician who was never elected into any legislative bodies hence fails WP:NPOL. In that case, the subject must satisfy general GNG criteria. In this case also, the subject fails it as there is no significant coverage rather than some trivial and incidental coverage. These [24] [25] [26] are the only three good sources where the subject is the primary topic, where one is about the person being infected by Covid-19. The rest of the sources are about something else where he has been mentioned. I only found this [27] extra one as a better source on doing WP:Before, but still not sufficient for getting sigcov even if we combine it all. Fails to get significant coverage hence fails GNG Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – If a person involved in politics has not been elected, selected or appointed to the state/federal post, he is presumed to be notable "only" when such individual has been a subject of discussion in RS for his "notable role(s)". At present, the subject in question fails to satisfy ANYBIO and BASIC besides NPOL and GEN. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally fails the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Chandra[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCREATIVE and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Most of the sourcing is about a complaint they filed on another actor. Not involved in making any notable production either. Ab207 (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft status: My concerns with this page are similar to the nom. Although all the sources are not about the complaint, most are. The focus needs to be broader and more coverage to be, per Wikipedia's purpose, an encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greysonsarch (talk • contribs) 14:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is a references bombarding, but fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G. Srinivasa Rao[edit]

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

Most of the sources are covering about the overall Covid 19 situation in Telengana. Some other are just press releases. This [28] is the only source where the subject is the primary topic. But this is about this person getting admitted into hospital due to Covid-19 and have just 4 sentences in it. This article is just a case of WP:REFBOMB as none of the sources are giving the enough sigcov to establish notability even if we combine all the sources together. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. A public administrator is not a notable position and none of the sources add notability via GNG. Vikram Vincent 14:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are not enough sources providing indepth coverage of Rao to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Farnsworth[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker. It appears that he did direct and write 2 semi-notable films, but haven't found RS about him directly. Natg 19 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try again once more?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teeka Ram Meena[edit]

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

Since this is the chief of election commission, he has recieved some coverage from press releases regarding the upcoming and past elections. All of the sources are basically just some press releases an interviews. I was not able to find any sources which gives him the in-depth coverage to have an stand alone article. Fails GNG as their is no sigcov. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:16, 28 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, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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" arguments are stronger. I have to discount the opinions assuming that nobility are automatically notable, because nothing in our guidelines says so, and it's also not our usual practice (see also WP:OUTCOMES#Monarchs and nobility). This leaves us with the question of whether her media coverage confers notability. The "delete" side has argued that the coverage is not substantial enough for WP:GNG, and these arguments have not been rebutted by the "keep" side. Sandstein 07:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland[edit]

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

As it was discussed a few months ago in the deletion discussions about her siblings (Princess Adrienne and Prince Nicolas) and cousins (Prince Alexander and Prince Gabriel), the subject of this article does not appear to be notable either. Aside from the fact that she's a child and the article could potentially fail WP:BLP1E, the topic itself fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. First, because there's no significant coverage of her in the news, unlike some other prominent royal children such as her aunt, Crown Princess Victoria's children. Second, she was stripped off her HRH style about a year and a half ago, which means that she will 'probably' be keeping a low profile (WP:LOWPROFILE) throughout her life and she will never be a public figure unlike her mother Princess Madeleine. The article should at best be redirected to the appropriate section on Madeleine's article, just like the ones for her siblings. Keivan.fTalk 07:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable per WP:GNG. Eight in line for the throne of Sweden. Good sourcing. Extensive coverage of this the first child Princess Madeleine. AfD results of other articles has no baring on this article per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BabbaQ (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • How is she notable per WP:GNG? Where is the independent coverage of the subject? The only notable event covered about her is her birth (WP:ONEEVENT) which can be easily incorporated into the article about her mother. Being the first child of Madeleine also doesn't make her eligible for a special treatment. At best she has the same level of notability as her siblings. Being in line to the throne is not a valid reason to keep a stand-alone article on individuals. I can name dozens of people who are titled prince/ss and are among the first individuals in line to the throne yet we do not have an article on them, because notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED) and requires independent coverage by secondary sources. Keivan.fTalk 17:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep - Notability exists purely on the fact that she is in line for the Swedish throne, a line that only consists of eleven people. (Of course applies to her siblings and cousins as well). --Marbe166 (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a valid reason for notability, and the discussions that took place about the articles on her siblings and cousins show that the community also thinks the same way. As an example, Princess Astrid of Belgium and Prince Laurent of Belgium's children are well ahead in line to the throne, but none of them have independent articles here, because they fail the general notability criteria despite being princes/sses and in line to the throne. Keivan.fTalk 17:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per the result of the first nomination seven years ago and actually several children in lines to the throne across the world meet the GNG. –Cupper52Discuss! 10:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys have to make up your mind about other AfDs having a bearing on this one or not. Nevertheless, I should mention that two AfDs were opened for her sister Adrienne as well, with the first one resulting in keep and the second one resulting in delete. So any outcome is possible. The statement actually several children in lines to the throne across the world meet the GNG is also wrong. I have already provided an example from Belgium in my previous comment. Other examples would be Infanta Cristina of Spain's children or Princess Märtha Louise of Norway's children, who are also in line to the throne, yet no stand-alone article exists for them, with most of them being deleted or redirected. Keivan.fTalk 17:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Keivan.fTalk 21:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Keivan.fTalk 21:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:LOWPROFILE child for whom privacy is a serious concern, where the illusion of WP:Notability is purely due to familial ties (but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED). See WP:INVALIDBIO: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article. TompaDompa (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Already covered at the mother's article: Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland. No automatic notability from being in line to a throne. If being eleventh in line to the Swedish throne was such a notable thing, then there would be plenty of sources to satisfy WP:BIO, but there aren't. ----Pontificalibus 13:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Changing my !vote to Strong Keep per Cupper52s good notes of previous AfD result for this article that established notability as well. Clearly notable per WP:GNG. Eight in line for the throne of Sweden. Good sourcing. Extensive coverage of this the first child Princess Madeleine. AfD results of other articles has no baring on this article per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BabbaQ (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. You say an old AfD on this article established notability, and then you ignore the results of other AfDs about similar articles on which the whole community voted. You either take AfDs into consideration or you don't. We cannot only cherry-pick the ones that support our narrative. I should also mention that two AfDs were opened for her sister Adrienne as well, with the first one resulting in keep and the second one resulting in delete. So any outcome is possible. Also per WP:GNG, she is actually not notable. No independent coverage about her exists other than some WP:ROUTINE stuff. The only notable event covered about her is her birth (WP:ONEEVENT) which as I said earlier can be easily incorporated into the article about her mother. Also FYI, at this point she is ninth in line to the throne. She was fifth at birth, and she has been pushed down to the ninth position in only 7 years, so being in line doesn't mean anything. As years pass by, she'll go even further down. Cupper52's statement that actually several children in lines to the throne across the world meet the GNG is also inaccurate as I gave about 20 examples of such children, none of whom meet our notability criteria. Clear example of WP:LOWPROFILE. Keivan.fTalk 16:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keivan.f, I personally agree with the points you're making, but I think those points have been made by now. You're heading into WP:BLUDGEON territory. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • TompaDompa You're right. I sometimes get carried away. But since BabbaQ restated his points and changed his vote again, I thought maybe I should restate my points as well one last time to wrap it up. It's up to other users now. Keivan.fTalk 17:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, very notable person, and the article is well sourced as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: I wouldn't call her “very” notable. –Cupper52Discuss! 18:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note. The results of other AfDs does not apply here. Neither does deletion rationales for other articles AfDs. BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa simply responded to the statement Members of ruling dynasties are generally considered notable, which is evidently not true. Keivan.fTalk 03:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is User:TompaDompa's special AfD collections! He shown his collections at every monarchy related AfD shows. 🤣 VocalIndia (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I don’t even understand what that sentence means, but I suggest you stop targeting and judging people who disagree with you. Keivan.fTalk 13:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally, I'm no fan of royalty. Some people are and will read or write about it. I see no particular reason to delete. gidonb (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would you like to set forth a valid ground, there? Ravenswing 22:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are valid articles linked above that count toward the WP:GNG. These are then argued with. Unfortunately this has become routine at AfD discussion. As I pointed out below: huge waste of time! Further to this point: please argue with others, not with me. As I wrote here: I'm no fan of royalty. Even so, by my analysis there is sufficient coverage for the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure why your vote should be immune to discussion, especially when you didn't actually advance a valid ground one way or another. That being said, what particular sources do you feel give substantial coverage to the subject, as the GNG and BLP requires? Ravenswing 07:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think he’s referring to the sources listed by User:Werldwayd, all of which are WP:ROUTINE. Keivan.fTalk 13:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not going to worry about who speaks louder, has the last word on attacking sources, canvasses, bludgeones, and creates a hostile environment. I stated my opinion after carefully weighing the sources and follow WP rules. Whoever closes this will look at all threads, and will decide whatever they decide. It's all good with me. This AfD already looks messier by the day. I wish everyone good luck and am not going to get involved beyond what I already did! gidonb (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic discussions (WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NPA)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment. In 2014 this entry was already nominated. It badly failed even before the princess even had as much as a name!!! It is a total waste of community resources to nominate this article again! Please, nominate only when there is a chance of success. Nominator, you're not only NOT improving WP yourself, you also keep everyone else from improving our encyclopedia! gidonb (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly am I keeping everyone from improving the encyclopedia?? I haven't chained you to a bed! If you want to improve this article then go ahead and do it. Plus, multiple articles go through several deletion discussions, including the article about her sister which was deleted after being nominated twice (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge (2nd nomination)). There are already users who support my point of view, so I suggest you don't speak on behalf of the community. Besides, the article hasn't changed much since 2014, with only two sections on her "birth" and "christening" and she was stripped off her HRH styles in 2019, which means that she will be keeping a low profile = no public service. Just like her siblings Nicolas and Adrienne, and her cousins Alexander, Gabriel and Julian. Keivan.fTalk 03:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKE! VocalIndia (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s try this again Keivan. Results on other articles AfDs has no baring on this AfD. Neither does deletion rationales for other articles like the ones you are mentioning. There is a clear Keep consensus as of today for this article. BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let me make it clear then BabbaQ. This is a deletion discussion. People present their cases and points here to get a consensus. As a result, other articles about people with similar status can be used to demonstrate a specific point. Besides, this is not a voting contest. You have to make argument in favor or against the article based on our policies. Arguments such as “she’s notable” or “she’s in line to the throne” are not sufficient and the closing admin will not consider them valid. Keivan.fTalk 12:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keivan.f, you're wasting your own time and everyone else's. You could have used this time productively by improving articles, as could everyone else in this discussion. There are many articles that need attention. Instead, you and others waste time with frivolous AfDs and arguments. In the interest of improving Wikipedia, this needs to be pointed out! Please WITHDRAW NOW and stop arguing with everyone about something that will not happen as it has no base in our policy and guidelines! gidonb (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: Please stop dictating to everyone else what they should be doing. I have been on this project since 10 years ago and have created and improved dozens of articles so I don’t need any advice on this matter. As a matter of fact, I have been carrying on with my contributions in the past days just like everyone else so I don’t really understand what you mean by wasting your own time and everyone else's. This is a deletion discussion! No one is forcing anyone to leave a comment here or participate. This article that you are trying to keep has no place for improvement otherwise it wouldn’t have been nominated. If you’re so interested in keeping it, then why don’t you go ahead and improve it yourself, instead of ordering me to do so? Your argument that will not happen as it has no base in our policy and guidelines is also void because I and two other users have already demonstrated why it should be deleted based on our guidelines. You have no right to call other people’s arguments “frivolous“ because this is a community where free speech has been practiced for years and no one needs to shut their mouths just because their arguments don’t suit your narratives. You voted, and you stated your opinion and that will be respected. Now stop attacking me. Keivan.fTalk 16:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will be archiving this part because the whole thing has really gone off topic. Keivan.fTalk 16:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merely being in line to a throne does not indicate encyclopedic notability as defined on Wikipedia. This has been confirmed in AFD discussions regarding her cousins, who rank higher than her in the line. Those articles were thus deleted. This argument is also not valid per WP:INVALIDBIO. This child is a minor whose parents have stated that she will be raised as a private person. Wikipedia has no business covering her independently from her parents. Reputable sources cited in the article prove routine coverage of what is basically her mother's life; gossip magazines, on the other hand, hardly prove notability. Surtsicna (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe there are other reasons for notability, but, given the state of modern medicine and the fact that Royals no longer lead armies into hand-to-hand battle, it is very unlikely that this person will ever succeed to the throne, so there is no inherent, WP:POLITICIAN-style notability here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete: Notwithstanding whatever Wikipedia guidelines and policies there may or may not be in cases for or against sibling equality, guidelines & policies (on that subject) about which I absolutely could not care less, it is unfathomable to me how this article could have survived the deletion of the articles on her brother and her sister. Not even if the great Emperor Ivor Widefathom himself rose from his logistically challenged barrow or boat grave and started giving out lethal Keep! orders could this be made fathomable to me. Are we really (really) to play such appalling mind games with living children? Uh, they (living children) use Wikipedia, and these three live in a place where English is language #1. Nothing less than shameful, that's what this inequality is. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Let's knock down the ducks in a row. First off, being in line for a throne (never mind far down the list) is not a valid part of any notability criterion on Wikipedia, and contrary to the unsupported opinion of some Keep voters -- no one arguing for the notability of cute blond royal toddlers are battling for the notability of obscure tribal monarchs in Nigeria, say -- there is zero consensus to the contrary. Nor does the garbage decision of an AfD seven years ago (complete with such rationales as "she is in line to the succession to the throne," "Princess Leonore now has a name and an official Swedish noble title," "Madeleine's daughter will receive a title" and the like) enjoin us from revisiting the subject. Those claiming a GNG keep plainly misunderstand the GNG, which is not namedrops in however-reliable sources, but actual significant coverage, to the subject, in reliable sources. This obviously has not been forthcoming, and to any voter who might respond "Well, how much can you say about a small child?" I answer, "You're right. There isn't. Which is why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article." Ravenswing 22:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Note to admin Recent delete votes are come from User:Keivan.f's vote request [29]. See WP:CANVASS. He attracted users who had nothing to do with this AfD and who were voted 'delete' at similar AfDs. Why ppl are using vote as a weapon ? What is a shame? VocalIndia (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and additional note to admin Your attempts at keeping this article are beyond whatever I have seen so far on any deletion discussions. FYI, it would be considered wp:CANVASS only if I invited people who voted delete in the previous discussions. Also it is totally acceptable to invite 1) Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article 2) Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) 3) Editors known for expertise in the field 4) Editors who have asked to be kept informed. As an example, SergeWoodzing voted keep in the previous discussion on this page yet I decided to ask for his insight; and he decided on his own to vote ‘delete’ this time. I didn’t ask him to vote in a particular way. Also I didn’t invite Surtsicna, Phil Bridger, TompaDomp or Pontificalibus to this discussion either, not to mention that I asked for a few people’s ‘insights’ on their talk pages, not their ‘votes’. So next time get your facts straight before making a fuss. Keivan.fTalk 05:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: (shrugs) I've participated in over a thousand AfDs, seven unrelated ones within the past week alone. Demonstrably, Keivan.f didn't just bring in those who voted to Delete in previous related AfDs, so the canvassing charge is baseless on the face of it. But that being said, we all know -- of course -- that a closing admin doesn't rule on headcount, but on reviewing the strength of the arguments presented. I am quite comfortable with any editor's informed opinion being included in that review. Ravenswing 07:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC from like 3 VI edits) Comment. I was unfortunately brought here by Keivan.f, otherwise I wouldn't have seen this discussion that I actually do have a VERY strong opinion on. If only we could watchlist nobility BLP AfDs without watchlisting all the BLP AfDs... An experienced admin should close this, with special attention to the policy arguments and discussion on what constitutes GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, SergeWoodzing and Surtsicna made numerous edits to the article before the AfD (with Surtsicna voting delete and Serge voting keep in the previous AfD seven years ago), so at least their !votes should still be considered. JoelleJay (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since it seems it's ok for me to !vote given my extensive prior involvement in nobility AfDs (including two currently ongoing), I'll go ahead an add my opinion. On top of what the other delete !voters argue (run-of-the-mill coverage, WP:NOTINHERITED, general consensus to delete articles on minor children of notable people, the fact that this is a child living a private life) I'd also point out that BLPs require high-quality independent sources -- which are largely missing from this article. 12/25 refs are to the royal family website (primary), 3 are to public records/archive databases (primary, shouldn't even be in the article...), 1 is to the Swedish constitution (no mention of Leonore), 3 are to "special interest" tabloid-esque sites (Hello! and Royal Central) discussing her birth/birthday/citizenship, a further 2 are newspaper birth announcements, 3 are newspapers revealing her name (2 are the exact same source), and 1 addresses the Swedish king removing some grandkids from the house. So, exactly the same trivial coverage we see for any celebrity's kids and which we regularly disregard when considering notability for standalone articles (e.g. North West, the Jolie-Pitts, all of them having waaaaaaay more publicity). JoelleJay (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - Several editors has received this message (all !voting Delete so far) to join this AfD by the nominator. BabbaQ (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note @BabbaQ: Only a few editors who received the message actually joined the conversation, such as SergeWoodzing (who voted keep on the old discussion for this page and is a contributor to the article so per our policies he can participate in this discussion). On the other hand neither Phil Bridger, Surtsicna, TompaDomp nor Pontificalibus have been invited by me to this discussion and they all questioned the very existence of this article. And as I said earlier it is totally okay based on our policies to ask for the opinions of 1) Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article 2) Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) 3) Editors known for expertise in the field 4) Editors who have asked to be kept informed. If you feel there might be other experienced editors who might help with getting a consensus please don’t hesitate and inform them as well. Keivan.fTalk 13:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note 2 Just noticed that Davidgoodheart invited Dimadick to participate in this AfD. It’s totally fine in my opinion to invite experienced editors, but since some users preferred to make it known who has been invited by me to the discussion I thought it’d be better to mention this as well. Keivan.fTalk 07:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have been told twice about WP:BLUDGEON [30] [31]. Cool down Keivan. BabbaQ (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some users here decided to weaponize WP:CANVASS against me. I have the right to respond back to those accusations. On the other hand, I’m done with this discussion. It bothers me to see people talking based on feelings rather than following policies. But at this point I don’t even care. I’m out. Keivan.fTalk 15:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic (WP:NOTFORUM)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't care if this AfD was kept or deleted! But it is not fair! Shameless!!! VocalIndia (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@VocalIndia: I warn you to watch your words before making any further accusations or personal attacks, all of which have literally zero basis. And don’t you even dare to say that you don’t care about this AfD’s outcome cause so far all I have seen from you is intervening in the process with baseless allegations and meaningless comments. Keivan.fTalk 13:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources in the article indicate that she has already received press coverage. That is enough to establish notability, regardless of whether she ranks high or low on a succession list. Dimadick (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The article has 24 sources, 12 of which are from the Swedish Royal Court website. That's not independent coverage. The other sources only cover Madeleine giving birth, which counts towards the mother's notability rather than the child's. In short, no in-depth coverage of the child herself exists other than some WP:ROUTINE stuff on the web. Keivan.fTalk 07:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keivan, you know I like you, but you have already been told twice before in this discussion about WP:BLUDGEON. [32] [33] Perhaps it is time to take that advice to heart. It does not look good. BabbaQ (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, I'm slightly offended that on the one hand you're suggesting -- repeatedly, even -- to Keivan that he ought to follow my advice, while on the other suggesting above that my opinion (among others) be disregarded. If my POV is good on the one hand, it should be good on the other. Ravenswing 09:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was not your opinion that was questioned. It was the fact that you was canvassed to come here. But please, continue disrupting the AfD with nonsense. I’m out. BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like you too BabbaQ, and I assume that you are making this suggestion with good faith (though I strongly disagree with you on the issue of canvassing). In any case, as I said above I won’t be making comments on this discussion again. I’m officially out too. Keivan.fTalk 15:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keivan.f I'm not sure if they'll respond now. –Cupper52Discuss! 16:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shiloh Jolie-Pitt has received many orders of magnitude more in-depth coverage than Leonore, yet we don't have an article on her or any of her siblings because it's been widely accepted for well over a decade that minor children of celebrities are not notable on their own if they are only covered in the context of their families. End. Of. Discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I made my previous, slightly sitting on the fence, edit without looking into this much, but now see that this article is about a seven-year-old child whose parents want her to be brought up as a private citizen. Of course we shouldn't have an article about her. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her parents want to raise her as a private citizen, we should respect that wish. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Heckels[edit]

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

BLP of an artist that does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Mccapra (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparently he gained some media coverage for, quote, "drawing 'rubbish' portraits of people's pets", which apparently started out as a joke. If he gains more attention down the line for said pet portraits, he will be eligible for an article. But not now.--- Possibly (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This topic might be noteworthy if there is another piece of significant coverage in a credible third-party source. I'd support moving the article to Draft space to give editors an opportunity to improve it to meet Notability.--Greysonsarch (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BD2412 T 03:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Western Telematic Inc.[edit]

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

Promo piece with likely COI editing on a non-notable company. The sources are plentiful, but most are directory listings and press release regurgitations, others 50-year-old offline ones that can't easily be verified, hence the bottom line is that even if all the promo fluff were removed, there's not much of substance left. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP.

This was declined at AfC twice, but moved to main space anyway, so let's see what the community says. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Genuinely nothing more to add. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have multiple independent reliable sources. The summary sounds as though the company may be of historic interest in addition to its current work. The article mentions that one of the first products was a component for the IBM 1130 which has a fairly lengthy article on its own. Perhaps some of the sources in that extensive article will have additional information to improve this one. Also, please remember that offline sources are still perfectly valid sources, regardless of their age. You cannot dismiss offline sources as "cannot be verified", that is not Wikipedia policy. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability isn't inherited. Just because the IBM 1130 may be notable, doesn't make every component supplier to it notable. And if this company was a particularly 'important' supplier, you might expect it to get at least one mention in the (lengthy, as you say) article on the 1130.
And yes, offline sources are acceptable, but notability requires that those offline sources not just mention the subject in passing but offer significant coverage, and when you look closely, many of those sources are cited against general statements about sharing computers and printers etc., which, for all we know, may not even mention the company, let alone cover it in any depth. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point about the IBM 1130 was merely that the Wikipedia article for that computer is long and detailed, with many sources. It would be worth looking through those sources to see if there is any useful information about this company as well, that is all that I meant. As to your second point, "for all we know" is not really a good argument about a source. Some editors have cited those sources, claiming that they support the statements made. We cannot ignore them simply because of your assertion that "for all we know" they might not support notability. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Granted, 'for all we know' may have been a poor choice of phrase, but the point is this: just because one editor claims that those sources support the article contents, surely cannot be enough, as this makes a mockery of the whole notion of verifiability — otherwise what's to stop a COI editor or hoaxer from creating anything they want, citing some obscure offline sources (real or fictitious), and making it virtually impossible for anyone to prove them wrong? Therefore surely the onus isn't on me (in this case) to disprove that claim, but for whoever is making the case for notability to support it appropriately and beyond doubt, which I really don't think has been achieved here. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OFFLINE and WP:PAPERONLY for more information. Remember that Assume Good Faith is a central tenet of Wikipedia (this really needs to be placed at the top of every AfD discussion), and so our default is to assume that the editor who cited the book did so correctly, until we have information to demonstrate otherwise. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've checked as many references as I could find and not a single one met the criteria for establishing notability. The references were either promo pieces on a product or mentions-in-passing. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Good Gofers[edit]

No Good Gofers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I also tried the Internet Archive search which has in the past shown to contain some trade magazine reviews for some pinballs, but I got no hits for this one." The prod was removed with no meaningful rationale, the article was not improved, months have passed... AfD time. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The machine was from a famous manufacturer, had a production run of thousands and so is covered in the numerous books covering pinball such as The Complete Pinball Book, The PinBotz Guide to the Greatest Pinball Machines, &c. There are lots of details and credits here and so the hard facts are well-covered. There's plenty of reviews out there too and so policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." But we don't have a deadline for this and AfD is not cleanup. The worst case would be merger to another page such as Williams or Pat Lawlor and so, per policy WP:PRESERVE, there's no case for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew Davidson, How is the Internet Pinball Database reliable? It seems user-generated "The data in this database has been laboriously gathered by the Editors over many years, from books, photographs, flyers, web sites, pinball manufacturers, collectors' personal records, and of course the pinball machines themselves. Most of the actual photographs in the database came from various collectors – over 2,665 different contributors to date." And if you found coverage in a book, please cite a page number and number of paragraphs, to ensure that we are not dealing with a passing mention in a half-sentence. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lacking notability. No sources I could find from reliable publications or on sites like Archive.org. Namcokid47 18:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Namcokid47's findings and the nom. I also checked the books Andrew mentions: The latter of the two includes the game in a listicle with merely a handful of sentences and bullet points, not significant coverage. I don't have access to the other, I'm assuming that it looks similar (and one source is not sufficient either way). IceWelder [✉] 12:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge It very much feels like we should have an article that mentions this. In a good world we'd have a few dozen of these for the "barely/nearly notable" machines. This one isn't huge but [34] is a reliable and independent review. [35] in reliable but not independent. There is other evidence that the game is notable (it's in [36]). This is the kind of thing we should have a few paragraphs on as part of a larger topic. And it's the kind of thing that Wikipedia's notability guidelines don't handle real well. Is it notable? Yeah, one good source I can find and I suspect some of the relevant books mentioned by Andrew have more and other sources that push it over the bar in any case. Should it be it's own article? Not in my opinion. Better handled as part of a list article. Hobit (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, there are tons of reviews of this game, but only one I'd call independent and reliable that I can find. If Andrew is right, The Complete Pinball Book or "Complete Pinball" cover this game (and I'd be surprised if they didn't), we have enough. I can't find electronic copies of those books however. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Classic Game Room doesn't seem reliable, and neither does the TNT Amusements one. They don't seem to have any editorial background or anything that is required for a source to be considered reliable. Neither these or Andrew's brief mentions are enough to make an article. Namcokid47 17:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure what Classic Game Room is (my bad for not including names with each link), but you'd agree the stuff from papa.org is reliable and independent? TNT one seems quite reliable--their job is to sell pinball machines and they are apparently good at it. But yeah, not independent I'd guess. This week in pinball has a fair number of hits on this game, but none particularly detailed. As I said, it seems notable--certainly experts in the field are quite aware of it. And there is tons to write about given just the papa and TNT stuff. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hobit, I am using a script (User:Headbomb/unreliable) that flags unreliable sources (even in forms of links here), and it did flag both of your links as 'generally unreliable'. That said, this probably is because both of those are on YouTube. In general, we all know that when the best sources are video, we are scratching the bottom of the proverbial barrel... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • To flag something unreliable because it is published on Youtube I think is a mistake. The question is if the organization posting the material meets our sourcing requirements. That it is cheaper, easier, and gains more exposure to publish on Youtube rather than one's own site doesn't seem like it should be part of our equation. But I do agree, we can't take just anything on Youtube and identifying reliable, independent sources is harder (both for scripts and people) when Youtube is involved... Hobit (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hobit, I actually agree that we tend to dismiss video sources too much. Part of it is that they are difficult to verify (can't CTRL+F inside, although this may change as the AI auto-script becomes better). Anyway, I think the review you found is relatively reliable, but if it is the best source we have, I think we are still on the wrong side of borderline here. But trying to see what can be salvaged, perhaps some merge and redirect to Pat Lawlor might work? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • YouTube is now my goto place for tutorials about non-academic topics such as DIY, motoring and other practical needs. For example, like many people I've been wondering about getting an electric car. Traditional mass media such as newspapers and networks is mostly lightweight entertainment like Top Gear while the motoring press tends to require subscriptions or purchase of hard-copy magazines. So, to get informed I've been watching YouTube where, for example, authorities like Sandy Munro are so impressive in their analysis that I started that article about him. For this topic, I watched a review. The presenter is clearly an expert and, as he demonstrates the machine, the facts mostly speak for themselves. As a source, this is more reliable than most journalism. Traditional journalism is dying and the new media is taking over. We should adjust our expectations accordingly. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources found CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Piotrus' arguments, mainly the ones in reply to Andrew Davidson. When the book citations are located, the article could be started again I suppose. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SoccerProject[edit]

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

Niche browser game, very poorly referenced (mentions in passing/unreliable websites). No indication of reception/reviews/significance. Seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (video games) and WP:GNG in general. Previous AfD from 2008 ended as 'no consensus', which is telling given how inclusionist we were back then... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how this article survived a deletion discussion is beyond me. Very crufty and notability isn't demonstrated. SportingFlyer T·C 14:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I too am surprised this survived deletion. No notability is established by any of the sources used. Namcokid47 16:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Primarily cites its own website as sources, while the others cited are not reliable. Traditional reliable sources have no results. IceWelder [✉] 16:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - survived previous discussion as guidelines like WP:GNG, WP:NWEB and WP:NVG were not enforced back in 2008. It fails those guidelines so there is no longer any reason to keep this article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spiderone, Indeed. Sometimes I wonder if it would make sense to simply start checking all keeps from those years (let's say, pre 2010) and see what proportion got deleted (and would get deleted now...). Logic being, if something was bad enough to hit AfD then, it probably deserved it... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus - yeah, definitely. For footballers, a lot of the ones that scraped through then might actually pass more comfortably if their career did actually go anywhere but, certainly with things like companies, games, web content, films... If they scraped a 'no consensus' back in Wikipedia's dark days, it definitely raises the question as to whether they'll even survive 7 days of AfD now... Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus - anyone that ever says "I've finished my to-do list" is a liar Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. Daniel (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AWH Engineering College[edit]

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

Nothing found on doing a WP:BEFORE. One source in the article is the college website and other one is something like a directory. Fails GNG Kichu🐘 Need any help? 06:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 06:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 06:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 06:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Links are not secondary sources. Insufficient notability given, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES applies. So, delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ammini College of Engineering[edit]

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

No independent relibale sources to establish notability and nothing was found on doing WP:Before. Clearly fails GNG Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No RS with a BEFORE. Fails NSCHOOLS. Vikram Vincent 19:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a non-notable college. It only exist on its official website and the school/collage database websites (WP:USESPS) identical to edu database-searches such as ICBSE and OutlookIndia [37], [38]. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There isn't even the usual trivial sources about this that exist for some school. Let alone anything in-depth. So, the article should clearly be deleted. Unless someone can find WP:THREE in-depth, reliable, non-trivial, independent sources so it will pass WP:NORG. I'm more then happy change my vote to keep if anyone can. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Libcom.org[edit]

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

Non-notable organization and web site that has already been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libcom.org (2nd nomination). I haven't seen the deleted article, so am not tagging G5, but probable G5. Also close to A7. Naïve Google search finds two pages of hits on the organization's own web presence, which shows that it exists, then finds a reference to it in Reddit. Duh. No mention of anything since 2015, when the AFD was closed. One of the references is their own web site, and the second one says nothing about them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In fact, the second one does have nontrivial coverage of libcom. The ref bokk (a 2018 collection) contains an article "Rethinking networked solidarity" by Sky Croeser which says "The main focus of this research is on Libcom (discussed in more details below), a non-corporate site." Lembit Staan (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For further context (from a cursory read) the Sky Croeser chapter in Social Media Materialities and Protest (Routledge) goes into depth exploring the extent to which Libcom can be considered a social media site, as well as the dynamics within Libcom between contributors / forum participants and the Libcom collective/administrators, and tries to assess the extent to which Libcom "facilitates solidarity efforts" more widely in comparison to standard forms of social media (specifically Facebook) using debates around the struggles in Kurdish Syria as an example. LittleDwangs (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. There comes a point when recreation of such content can no longer be seen as an effort to improve the encyclopedic content of this project. BD2412 T 04:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I never saw the actual article since it was deleted, but I read the 2nd AFD. No one provided any sources of coverage. I attempted to change that and also what policies apply here. I kept the article short, anticipating an AFD, so I’ll make my case. Libcom.org is an important website amongst anarchists and academics and is reflected in academic literature with 3,500+ mentions in Google Scholar. More importantly, I've enclosed a chapter by Croeser, that extensively examines the usage/online behaviours of users on Libcom.org across 14 page chapter.
I would argue this passes WP:BASIC and WP:WEBCRIT as it has a demonstrable influence in the field of anarchism, including academia, and multiple independent citations. Shushugah (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see where you see 3.500 mentions of libcom in google scholar. Instead I see libcom.org merely indicated as a publisher, i.e., nothing about libcom itself. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear we're in agreement. And numbers themselves don't formulate the basis of anything. I was stating that Wikipedia:SKYISBLUE, but clearly people then and now were not convinced, so I am attempting to provide more coverage. For the vast majority of Anarchist academics, they're more than happy to host/write on Libcom.org, even writing about Libcom.org on there, but I empathize why this is not independent for English Wikipedia.
    Because Libcom.org itself is a host/website, searching for articles about Libcom has proved challenging, but not impossible. For others curious, I've searched in google "libcom.org website -site:libcom.org" to filter out Libcom.org posts themselves. Shushugah (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. no multiple independent coverage. See my comments elsewhere. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per nom and lacks independent coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)#[reply]
  • Keep This is absolutely dumb. Probably the most well known long running anarchist website online. SP00KYtalk 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as dumb as you think. And the goal of this discussion is precisely to prove that you are right or wrong. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah mate, it's an absoloute joke. Libcom, easily one of the biggest anarchist spaces on the internet and a major repository for anarchists works in the english language and i bet 'dollars to doughnuts' you could not find a serious anarchist academic that does not see it as such, and it should be deleted? And yet even most marginal random anarchist writers get pages at times just because they were in a newspaper? Let us not be so dishonest to each other, there is not 'proving' anything because policy can be wielded to suit any position you people want it to.. I've read enough of these painful things already to see this, so.. What is the actual downsides to having this page? SP00KYtalk 08:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Responding with some more sources: Ephemeral Journal paper on Music and Anarchism, writes a short paragraph reviewing 163 posts made on LibCom.org [39], Zones of Proletarian Development refers to LibCom as "A more comprehensive list of autonomous libertarian activities which resist 'intrusive intervention' can be found on the excellent Libertarian Communist website https://libcom.org" [40], combined with the most extensive source (14 pages by Sky Croeser) at "Rethinking networked solidarity" makes this AFD from past ones, where at best LibCom had cursory reference/mention (which I've mentioned as well). This would not pass WP:GNG, but does pass WP:WEB Shushugah (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • reviewing 163 posts made on LibCom.org - not about libcom, also very weak WP:NWEB (trivial: no analysis of content in general, reviewing 163 posts - a footnote that summarizes the content of a thread about music ). Zones of Proletarian Development - libcom is mentioned in passing as a publisher, no substantial info. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion is in danger in falling into a perennial confusion between importance and notablility (per WP rules). For comparison: some time ago I have have learned that certain plant manufactured over 90% of some kind of important resin (dont remember which, say polyurethane) in Europe. Clearly, an important one. But searching high and low, I could not find any info about it beyond name and location. It was not even part of a public company. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Libcom.org is a frustrating website to find suitable sources for - in part because its articles, archived materials, and (occasionally) forums are used so widely in citations in journals, books and websites, meaning results discussing Libcom itself are drowned out by Libcom citations. Similarly the site is mentioned in 524 English Wikipedia articles. There are some more passing mentions, such as in The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism where Libcom is described as "a hub for libertarian communist ideas" (Chapter 5) or in this journal article where in an overview of contemporary British anarchism Franks and Kinna (both leading British anarchist academics) list it as "Libcom.org : primary resource for UK anarchists : lively forums, news, blogs, information and support and an extensive library". There's are also a number of articles slagging off Libcom, such as this one published in The Brooklyn Rail. LittleDwangs (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • frustrating website to find suitable sources -- yep; see my comment above. Everybody uses, but nobody cares. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an influential website for a wide segment of the far-left, I am surprised that there isn't more in-depth coverage of libcom.org itself. However, after examining the above sources posted above, it is clear that there are enough to write a WP:BASIC article on the topic.--User:Namiba 00:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there is some coverage of the website, like Sky Croeser's chapter and The Brooklyn Rail article. However, I think it's more important to see how the website is treated as a publication by those in the relevant subject area—similar to WP:JOURNALCRIT—and in this area we can see with a search on Proquest in The Wikipedia Library or JSTOR or with a Google News search (tag with "-site:libcom.org") that there are dozens to hundreds of meaningful citations in respectable works to libcom.org as a source. I'm not really sure what sort of WP:BEFORE search yielded only a primary source and a Reddit post. — Bilorv (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I believe the basics for establishing notability have been met for what is a significant and widely cited anarchist website (possibly the most significant anarchist website out there?). Definitely don't salt as the sole issue has been the difficulty identifying sufficient suitable sources to meet the notability criteria, and that the article is otherwise suitable for Wikipedia. Over time additional sources will likely appear. LittleDwangs (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bilorv's points + UCS; other than marxists.org there's few other sources internationally in English that match the ubiquity of libcom.org with regards to left politics/history in general. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bilorv, I find the analogy to WP:JOURNALCRIT to be appropriate. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BD2412 T 19:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K17ET[edit]

K17ET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a translator station that isn't even in operation anymore. The only sources are fcc filings, giving it zero notability. Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As the original creator of this article over 14 years ago, I can say with certainty that our standards have changed a bit, and we don't extend any presumed notability to stations that exist just to retransmit other stations or networks with no local material whatsoever. (Even running separate commercial breaks isn't enough by itself, not that you'd find any on a TBN station anyhow.) If we had a list of TBN's former translators/repeaters, I might suggest redirecting to that, but so far as I can tell we don't. There's still a part of me that would like if we had something on every broadcast facility that ever existed, but for some stations there just isn't enough out there to justify it. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: As this station was sold to Regal Media and wasn't owned by TBN at the time it signed off, redirection to the List of TBN Affiliates would be incorrect. Declaring this "just another TBN translator" shows that folks, with all due respect to my fellow editor above, haven't even looked at the article. To Rusf10, the article has 4 references on it. FCC filings are references from a highly notable source, we need to stop acting like they aren't. Presumed notability is indeed extended. An FCC license has been enough for many, many years over at WPRS and had been enough at TVS. Again, with all due respect to Wcquidditch, I respectfully disagree. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:55 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Who hasn't even looked at the article? Me or User:Wcquidditch (who wrote the article)? FCC filing are WP:PRIMARY sources, you need secondary sources to establish notability. They are not even close to be "highly notable". There is no presumption of notability, otherwise all tv stations are given auto-notability since all are required to file with the FCC (see WP:BCAST for guidelines that state translators as non-notable). It is "just another TBN translator", TBN does not localize its content on these stations, its a broadcast of a satellite feed.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::Um, who's been here for almost 16 years, has multiple GAs and an FA under his belt? Yeah, that'd be me....I know what a damned primary source is, ya damned fool! YOU still have missed the point, it wasn't a TBN translator because it wasn't owned by TBN. It was owned by Regal Media. Can't redirect it to List of TBN affiliates when it wasn't owned by TBN or broadcasting TBN programming, now can we? Also, exactly where does it say that a US federal government source isn't "highly notable"? Federal Government sources (ie: anything .gov, anything .mil) is considered HIGHLY reliable under RS. Always has. Not sure where you've been. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:51 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - while FCC filings are indeed reliable sources, they are not secondary - significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources is generally required to show notability, and I'm not seeing that here. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:Cedar Rapids TV In the intervening years, the majority of the TBN translators planned to be sold off to EUE either died or became H2/DTV America subchannel farms. This entire station's history is tied to being a TBN translator, and the sale to EUE never completed, so at best, a redirect to the template to keep its categorizations is for the best here. Nate • (chatter) 20:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:*I actually would be OK with this. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:32 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I've never heard of using a template as a redirect target for a page. The only valid redirect target would have to be a page where the station is mentioned, no such target exists.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's nowhere in the rules saying this can't be considered; I think it's a good compromise because it keeps it targeted somewhere which reflects its geographical location, and retains the existing categories as-is, rather than just throwing the reader into a confusing 'list of' alphabet soup, as is done with many of these 'shack with a Dish receiver tuned to channel 260/263 and a cheapo generator which projects its calls' translators which air either TBN or Daystar. Nate • (chatter) 23:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Station had no programming history beyond TBN. Signed on in 1988 on channel 60 and moved to channel 61 by 1992. No coverage even in local media. According to FCC STAs, TBN lost its lease July 27, 2012, and took it silent then. It never returned. Does not meet WP:BCAST or the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endosex[edit]

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

Neologism that fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NEOLOGISM. This term lacks significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, as required by GNG. Many of the sources in the article merely use the word, rather than discuss it (text justifying a term's notability by giving scattered examples of it being used is always a red flag in my view). Google Scholar (linked above) shows it has almost no usage (hence no notability) in the scholarly literature that we prefer per WP:SOURCETYPES (and many of the results for it are for an unrelated all-caps portmanteau of endocrinology and sexology). Crossroads -talk- 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Tweaked. Crossroads -talk- 03:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page is new, but it currently cites 15 different sources in 4 different languages (English, French, German and Spanish), and English-language usages in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the United States. Those sources include the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. I have additional sources that I had considered duplicative, but I will add them. The term is more than 20 years old, with its origin identified, but usage appears to have increased, warranting inclusion. Trankuility (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closer: This is the article's creator. Many of these sources merely use the term rather than give it encyclopedic discussion, and the rest are WP:DICDEF. Crossroads -talk- 22:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am of course entitled to comment on the proposed deletion of an article I created. Since first commenting, I have added another 10 citations. I think those give evidence of use across multiple different dimensions of language and region. I am glad to see that responses so far all recognize the need to keep the page or at least some material about the term in some form. Deletion is not warranted. Trankuility (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, sources that are merely using the term do nothing to help establish significant coverage, or discussion, of the term from multiple secondary sources. The Perottet incident is WP:NOTNEWS stuff that doesn't really get it over the bar. Crossroads -talk- 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Intersex (perhaps in somewhat condensed form in the section on terminology), as the term is explicitly a response to the existence of that concept. BD2412 T 04:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the terminology warrants inclusion, but the Intersex page is large and a brief introduction pointing to a page just like Endosex is better practice according to WP:SPLIT. Trankuility (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not per WP:No page, which applies to even notable topics; this is not a distinct topic and isn't notable. Crossroads -talk- 22:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look up endosex or intersex in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
  • Transwikify to Wiktionary. The current ngrams plot shows that endosex doesn't have enough data to plot. This coinage is highly premature to have as an article. It's the nature of journal papers and social media to have neologisms, which hopefully give their creators social cred or science props, but the majority of them sink beneath the waves. Every once in a while, someone coins a term that has some staying power. It's too early to know whether this is one of those. Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also support transwikification to Wiktionary. Crossroads -talk- 22:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Trankuility above. It's even better-sourced now, and given its history in a medical context extends back over two decades, I can't really see it as a neologism - Alison ❤ 19:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep endosex is to sex like cisgender to gender; a crucial and important concept. Google Scholar lists lots of use examples. Trimton (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ITSIMPORTANT. I addressed Google Scholar above. The rarity of use and lack of in-depth analysis counts against the article. Crossroads -talk- 22:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While I despise the attempts to refbomb this with "mentions", the term appears to have some academic currency. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Trankuility, or merge. This term / the concept under this name has been discussed for a couple decades in a modest number of sources, including some I don't see in the article yet like The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies and the section on "Doing endosex" in J. Edward Sumerau's America through Transgender Eyes (in contrast to e.g. Ipso gender or People who menstruate, which are very new / not often discussed, and which I supported merging). However, the discussions are often brief, not in-depth; it's borderline as far as whether it's notable enough for its own article vs better handled as a paragraph in Intersex. Even discarding things like the Proto-Indo-European etymology of sex and individual examples of use, though, a significant portion of the content that'd be due in an article about endosex will be removed as undue in an article about intersex (and this doesn't mean the content is bad: if you pasted the entire contents of Goy, which may be perfectly due in that article, into Jew, a lot of it would be trimmed as excessive/undue for that article). -sche (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are scattered sources, but in the aggregate they make for a satisfactory image of public use and discussion. This should do. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)
  • Keep It seems there are sufficient sources discussing it. Cinadon36 12:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to List of Faisalabad cricketers. Daniel (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atiq-ur-Rehman (Faisalabad cricketer)[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable cricketer, played in first-class matches per WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Faisalabad cricket team Has played 2 FC matches, but I couldn't find any real coverage. Sources though may exists offline or in Pakistani sources though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, are redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as ever with this nominator, there is no reason given for the deletion; no details of which sources have been checked (or even in this instance whether sources have been checked); no information regarding any relation to WP:NCRIC. Also no reflection of the approach set out in WP:ATHLETE that there should be longer periods provided to find relevant sources where those sources are likely to be in non-English languages, as in this instance. "Non-notable cricketer" is nothing more than an assertion and reflection of the nominator's (conscious or unconscious) bias, which has no place in an AfD proposal. DevaCat1 (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the two obstructionists have been told over and over again, the basic standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is GNG. This article does not meet that and needs to be deleted. This article has existed over three years. That was plenty of time to find adequate sources, so we should reject such pleading for extra time. Wikipedia needs to stop being cricketpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or weak redirect to List of Faisalabad cricketers‎. No significant coverage so fails WP:GNG. This trumps the trivial pass of WP:NCRIC, and very weak presumption of notability, gained by virtue of playing two matches for the weakest team in the competition. One innings of substance does not inspire any confidence that significant coverage exists. Was picked up by Central Punjab to play second XI cricket, so there is a chance he'll reappear to generate coverage and should that happen, the article can be recreated and retitled. Redirect is an accepted ATD. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing found in my search, not even single article and as a sources only ESPN scorecard is there so strong reliable sources not found & not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Keep votes need to provide sources with substantial coverage.4meter4 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. Anyone concerned that three years is insufficient time to find the minimum sources required for a biography can always ask for the article to be restored to draft space if they eventually manage to find those elusive sources.----Pontificalibus 17:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Faisalabad cricketers - failing GNG far more critical than a weak SNG pass Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Sri Lanka Police Sports Club (cricket). Daniel (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gayan Wimalashantha[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sri Lanka Police Sports Club (cricket) Has played 1 FC and 1 List-A match, but coverage is limited. There are lots of match reports of him playing in the Qatar T10 league a couple of years ago, but they are just match reports and not enough for significant coverage. Other sources showing more significance may exist offline or in Sri Lankan sources that I haven't been able to find though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a total and complete failure of GNG. Deleting this article is a complete slam dunk.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chiranjit Dhir[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant about them. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers Has played 1 FC match, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Sources may exits offline or in Indian sources that I haven't been able to find though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, is deleted/redirected, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment per Rugbyfan22 Rajuiu (talk) 13:44, 30 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 Gujarat cricketers. Daniel (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Bhatt[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, trivial coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers Has played 1 FC match, but coverage is limited. Sources may well exist offline or in Indian sources though that I haven't been able to find due to the timing of his career. 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, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:43, 28 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 Prem Bhatia (Delhi cricketer). If anything reliably sourced is worth merging, that is available from the history. As for the title of the target article, that can be discussed and decided on its talk page. Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Bhatia (Gujarat cricketer)[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant about them. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Prem Bhatia (Delhi cricketer) CricketArchive are suggested these two players are the same person, with his Gujarat appearance coming a couple of years after his Delhi appearances. With no DoB on the article of Cricinfo it makes me believe they are the same person. He made over 56 FC appearances for Delhi and Gujurat though so shouldn't be deleted. Could be moved to Prem Bhatia (cricketer) as well if merged.
  • Merge with Delhi cricketer and then retitle. CricketArchive says they're the same person and it can be trusted. Johnlp (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do we have any evidence he's the same player as the Delhi cricketer? This page is sourced to Cricket Archive. There's really two correct results here: either these are the same player or they're not. In both cases, this article should be deleted (as even WP:V is in question much less GNG). If they are, the information should be merged, though there's so little of it to merge that it can easily be done manually, and the Delhi cricketer should be renamed to Prem Bhatia since there's no need to disambiguate anymore. SportingFlyer T·C 12:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The CricketArchive link here links to an error page. Searching for Prem Bhatia on CricketArchive only brings up one player who played for both Delhi and Gujarat. Cricinfo lists two separate cricketers, but with no details (DoB/DoD/birth place) for the Gujarat cricketer. I would trust CricketArchive over Cricinfo due to its links with the ACS. Really only the information that he played for Gujarat needs to be added to the Delhi cricketer profile. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'd support the merge and delete then, since after the merge this won't be a valid redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 14:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It must have been at the time that the two were not considered the same person. It was Lugnuts who moved the article (in good faith), I'm assuming on the assumption that CA listed them separately. Since I compiled the player-by-player lists a few years previous to that I am almost certain I wouldn't have intentionally made that mistake myself. Bobo. 12:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that's where the CricketArchive error link on the page comes from, and quite possibly why there's still two links on Cricinfo. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:57, 28 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 Cornwall County Cricket Club List A players. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Burley[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 28 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 01:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Midfield Airport[edit]

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

Neither entry is for a "Midfield Airport". The first refers to Midfield Terminal, since renamed. The second is a "midfield airport", not a formal title, just a description. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unless evidence is presented of both target articles being referred to as "Midfield Airport" to a roughly equal degree. Nothing in either target article indicates such usage at this time. Furthermore, if there is such usage but one subject is substantially more likely than another to be referred to by this name, then WP:TWODABS applies and the distinction can be resolved with a hatnote. BD2412 T 04:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 28 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_March_28&oldid=1017771794"