Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 30 April 01 >

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter (meme)[edit]

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

Internet meme lacking secondary coverage. Note: I removed primary sources from the article before deciding the article could not be salvaged. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These links to social media where used as references, not as sources. I understand if that was inappropriate. YavBav09 (Talk) 08:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted to last edit by me, but removed social media references and added the templates from your last edit.
Why do think the article can't be saved? YavBav09 (Talk) 09:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and references have the same meaning, at least in the context I was using them. Please read WP:PRIMARY.
Your only source currently is Know Your Meme, and according to WP:RSN, this source should not be used as most of the content is user generated. See this discussion. So you currently have zero reliable sources. The best I can find is these two junk sources commenting on a rumour that the dog died: [1][2]. Is that enough content to justify an encyclopedia article? I'd assume not, but I'll let other people decide. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By sources I meant a place the information is got from/can be verified from.
The only source I could think of was Know Your Meme. You're right - I agree that these sources aren't enough, but I could not find any other good sources. I'm sure that information in the article is true, but I get that people want to verify it. Is there something that can be done? -- YavBav09 (Talk) 15:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that there are no good sources is that it's just 1 Internet meme and there isn't much reason to write about it. The only reason that Doge (meme) has sources is that the meme is very popular and significant. YavBav09 (Talk) 16:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and clarification. I think you don't have a good understanding about the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia though. Have a read of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The simple fact of the matter is if there are no good sources and not much to write about, there shouldn't be an article on the subject. This is an encyclopedia, it's supposed to be a collection of information that is so notable it has adequate sources to cover it, not a collection of all information. We shouldn't include information just because it exists, regardless of whether it's true or not. Or in other words, we should only include popular and significant memes, not all of them. These concepts of notability apply to both the article itself and the information within it. For example, even if we find enough sources to keep the article, you shouldn't mention that according to the lore Walter and Doge are friends, unless you have a reliable source for that. The reason I put a citation request on that statement is not just because I want to verify it, I also want to see that that information is important enough to add to the article. Importance would be determined by secondary coverage of the matter. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to say was that I think the meme is notable enough, but there aren't enough sources, because there's no reason to make one for just an internet meme, but I understand Wikipedia:Notability. I agree that == Dogelore == section should be removed, since I heard that in some YouTube video. I'm going to remove it right now. YavBav09 (Talk) 08:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you put [citation needed] on == History ==? The source is the generic source from Know Your Meme or did you put it because Know Your Meme isn't reliable?YavBav09 (Talk) 08:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I put a citation needed tag somewhere that would have been because that sentence did not have an inline citation. Please read Wikipedia:Inline citation. You shouldn't put sources at the end of the article, you should place citations at the end of the specific sentences they support. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it's not notable enough for "Bull terrier". -- YavBav09 (Talk) 06:50, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Storm (soccer)[edit]

Chicago Storm (soccer) (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 defunct soccer team from non-notable league. Fails GNG. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NTEAM, teams must satisfy GNG and there is no inherited notability from notable players or leagues. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 12:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , Per nom. fails WP:GNG , Alex-h (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - playing in the MISL is only a weak presumption of notability. No indication that this topic passes WP:GNG, which, ultimately, is the requirement here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:44, 8 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 Criteria (band). (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sweeney (musician)[edit]

Mike Sweeney (musician) (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 musician has been part of multiple notable bands, I can't find any significant coverage of him individually, nor any other indication of individual notability to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Lennart97 (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Criteria (band). He has done little outside of that band. He was not a member of Bright Eyes but a one-time guest. He was in Beep Beep (band) but they are not very notable either. Criteria seems like the best redirect target. Occasional guest appearances on other people's records can be described briefly at the Criteria article. Also, when searching, beware of a baseball player of the same name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to meeting our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested and per WP:CHEAP. That has been our usual way out with marginally notable musicians whose only real claim to fame is they once playing in a notable band. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 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 No consensus, usual disagreement between WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG, which unfortunately does not seem to be possible to resolve in this nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ilyas (cricketer, born 1996)[edit]

Mohammad Ilyas (cricketer, born 1996) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dropped because of poor performances. He hasn't done anything notable in his short career. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NCRIC having played in five first-class and a List A match. "Dropped because of poor performances" is an erroneous comment. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Has played 5 FC matches and 1 List-A match passing him for WP:NCRIC. Could possibly be redirected to List of Lahore Blues cricketers or similar as coverage is low. Could the nominator please link us to where he's found the player was 'dropped because of poor performances' please. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NCRIC as he have played in five first-class and a List A match which is enough to qualify. Grailcombs (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage, only wide ranging databases built on scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The trivial pass of NCRIC, by virtue of playing part of a one season, does not trump the GNG failure. His opportunities for further appearances have likely been affected by the restructuring of Pakistan domestic cricket (reducing the number of teams from 16 to 6), but there is nothing to suggest he will return to FC/LA cricket based on his performances to date, which also give little confidence any significant coverage exists anywhere. Redirection is an accepted ATD, but no suitable target exists. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into a list of Lahore Blues players if there is such an article. All the sources available are database entries, and it is not enough to dredge up a bunch of match scorecards and dress them up as a biography. There is no actual biographical information. If all the sources amount to a few cells in a table, then that is how the information should be presented. The GNG (specifically WP:SPORTCRIT) explicitly disallows articles based purely on numerical database scrapes, and takes precedence over NCRIC, so NCRIC is overruled and invalidated to the extent that it conflicts with GNG. Reyk YO! 14:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWeak keep: I don't really care for WP:NCRIC but it is what is and I've added a source to the article ... which sort of questions why no one else has found/discussed it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Djm-leighpark: Sorry, but you found a different Ilyas, a slightly younger one from Peshawar, for which there are lots of sources: Mohammad Ilyas (cricketer, born 1999). wjematherplease leave a message... 08:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just goes to show how easy it is to mix up different similarly-named people when the sourcing is so sparse. It's a problem that's come up several times before, but of course the cricket enthusiasts don't want to know about it. Reyk YO! 09:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou for pointing that out. I have moved to weak keep mainly to be consistent with WP:NCRIC and similar for sports, not that I'm much keep about the criteria. More usefully I've added a hatnote to the article. I'd possibly support by by someone else but I'm not prepared to do it myself; if this gets deleted it would be helpful if the Mohammad Ilyas (cricketer, born 1999) mentioned the namesake to avoid any inaccuracies creeping in in future. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he passes WP:NCRIC by virtue of having played both first class and one day matches. Furthermore, there is no evidence presented that he was dropped for performance reasons; rather, Lahore Blues were relegated from the top division of the Quaid-e-Azam trophy, and therefore have fallen outside the purview of first class cricket. Moreover, he is young enough to play more first class matches- he hasn't yet turned 25, so any implication that his career is over is unsupportable. I think the original AfD reasoning is pretty misleading. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly no teams were relegated; Pakistan cricket was restructured with six new first-class teams. And secondly, this does actually significantly reduce his future opportunities. Not that this is relevant in any way – he's either notable by virtue of having enough significant coverage to warrant a standalone article now, or he isn't. wjematherplease leave a message... 23:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wjemather.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim (talk) 20:48, 24 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) 22:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The purpose of NCRIC as detailed at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable policies and guidelines is to "provide bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline". Although NCRIC indicates this subject is likely to meet GNG, a detailed search for sources reveals that they actually do not meet GNG. We are left with a biography consisting of a few sentences supported only by statistics, and both WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:WHYN make it clear that this unacceptable.----Pontificalibus 11:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, For playing in five first-class, passes WP:NCRIC , Alex-h (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Wjemather and Reyk. NSPORT and NCRIC are pretty explicit that articles meeting an SSG are only presumed to meet the GNG. At AfDs once BEFORE is performed by the nom the burden is passed to keep !voters to demonstrate an article does meet GNG -- and no one here has actually done so. JoelleJay (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NCRIC. Riteboke (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alex-h and Riteboke, if GNG is failed it doesn't matter that NCRIC is met. JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 13 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 Global Alliance for EcoMobility. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EcoMobility[edit]

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

Notability and better covered in Sustainable transport Darrelljon (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:56, 24 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) 22:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with Sustainable transport. Mccapra (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could the participants proposing to merge clarify what content from EcoMobility they think should go into Sustainable transport and why? All the external links and detail about various conferences and such don't belong in Sustainable transport. Even the definition is not supported by reliable sources currently. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Global Alliance for EcoMobility which states "Currently the word 'EcoMobility' is still a rarely used term" followed by a couple of usage examples which aren't supported by the sources provided. It's a non-notable neologism that hasn't received significant adoption outside of this organisation.----Pontificalibus 14:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Pontificalibus Mccapra (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason I don't understand, the talk page already redirects there.--Darrelljon (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to an appropriate target in the best judgement of the closing admin. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 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 merge to Bahamas–United States relations. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the Bahamas in Washington, D.C.[edit]

Embassy of the Bahamas, Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was the subject of a previous AfD in 2019 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, Cairo) the result was procedural keep as participants clearly think the mass nomination was inappropriate and wanted the different embassies to be considered individually. The article is solely reliant on primary sources and it should be noted that embassies are not inherently notable. Fails WP:NBUILDING / WP:NORG / WP:GEOFEAT. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally agree with most of your points re poor sourcing/lack of notability in the different areas. I do see a benefit to having articles like this exist, given its highly structured format. As I'm going through several hundred embassy pages now, I'm curious if it would be worthwhile to re-explore whether embassies in general are notable or not, Shushugah (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shushugah, if the embassy is notable because of the role that it plays then it should be included in Bahamas-United States relations and I'm happy if that is the result of this AfD. Alternatively if we are talking about the embassy building then it would need to satisfy WP:NBUILDING. If you want to raise a broader discussion on whether embassies are inherently notable then I'm happy to participate. My observations are simply based on the outcomes of numerous previous AfD discussions held over the last 10 years. Dan arndt (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:44, 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 redirect to A Little Bit Longer. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BB Good (song)[edit]

BB Good (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for deletion because it shows a lack of notability per WP:NSONGS. The available coverage comes from only album reviews. Two low chart entries and one component chart. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:43, 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 redirect to Burundi–United States relations. If embassies become inherently notable later, the article may be restored. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Burundi in Washington, D.C.[edit]

Embassy of Burundi in Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was the subject of a previous AfD in 2019 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, Cairo) the result was procedural keep as participants clearly think the mass nomination was inappropriate and wanted the different embassies to be considered individually. The article is solely reliant on primary sources and it should be noted that embassies are not inherently notable. Fails WP:NBUILDING / WP:NORG / WP:GEOFEAT. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Dan arndt, that this article fails NORG, NBUILDING and GEOFEAT. However, I would push back on whether embassies are inherently notable or not. In short, I'm proposing something like a NEMBASSY policy of inherent notability.
Some embassies, like the Brazilian Embassy to Italy have extensive coverage of their building, Palazzo Pamphilj while others had extensive coverage of attacks, but that shouldn't be the minimum bar. Even a short stub like the article above (and it will probably continue to remain a stub), contains vital info that the List of diplomatic missions of Burundi won't contain, with room for more articles/interlinking in the future. Shushugah (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search does not find enough to meet WP:GNG, existing policy does grant inherent notable, at this time the only possible choice is delete. If there is a successful push to grant inherent notable to embassies, the article can be recovered. Jeepday (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the bilateral relations article. If there was a picture or discussion of some fabulous state dinner there, a keep or merge would be a go. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School of Management Sciences, Varanasi[edit]

School of Management Sciences, Varanasi (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 found with a BEFORE. Zero notability(NSCHOOLS) Vikram Vincent 04:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This editor is talking about some nonexistent consensus. Several AFDs where they have !voted keep have been deleted. Unless they come up with proof to support their "consensus" their vote needs to be ignored. Vikram Vincent 10:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should have no articles sourced only to the subject's webpage. This should be so basic a principal we should be able to place a proposed deletion notice on them when they are in such a condition, and the proposed deletion should be unremovable unless a new source is added.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:35, 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. Sandstein 12:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ramswaroop Memorial College of Engineering and Management, Lucknow[edit]

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

Zero RS with BEFORE. Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This editor is talking about some nonexistent consensus. Several AFDs where they have !voted keep have been deleted. Unless they come up with proof to support their "consensus" their vote needs to be ignored. Vikram Vincent 10:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a flagrant violation of verifiability principals. We need secondary sources, not just an organization's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete There are definitely secondary sources. Apparently the place was turned into a temporary jail for Covid-19 quarantine? [3] [4] Also a student died getting hit by a car which sparked protests. [5] A team of engineering students there won a contest! [6] I am sure if I could access (or read) Indian sources I would have no trouble finding sourcing for this college. On an unrelated note, I discovered while looking for sources that engineering colleges in India offer classes on Shit Flow Diagrams which I'm going to immediately start looking into for notability, because that seems like a great first article to write. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL about the 'shit flow diagrams'. So a lot of schools and colleges were converted into isolation facilities as migrants were travelling across the country on foot during the lockdown. Those unfortunate events do not make the educational institution notable. Vikram Vincent 18:15, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Mättö[edit]

Erik Mättö (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:VICTIM. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because he was also murdered by the Lapua Movement, but was otherwise unnotable:

Yrjö Holm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Willis (musician)[edit]

Matthew Willis (musician) (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:MUSICBIO; I can find absolutely nothing about this person that suggests notability. Tagged as such since 2009. Lennart97 (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to meeting notability. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, this reads more like an add trying to recruit students of his tutoring than an encyclopedic article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. Eliminating false positives for similarly-named persons, there are zero Google news/papers articles on this person. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish chess players[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Jewish chess players (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 page was nominated for deletion and the community voted to delete it in 2005. (It's possible it was recreated.) Regardless it should be removed. Sukey (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator - Being that organizations such as the Jewish Virtual Library publish and maintain online lists of Jewish people in various professions and areas of life this list is defensible. Sukey (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sukey (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as the article explains, the overlap between Judaism and chess has received substantial coverage in the academic literature. Therefore, the reasoning in the previous discussion is incorrect. Since no other rationale has been presented, the list ought to be kept. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless the nom (or another interested party) can impeach all but one of the books listed in the last paragraph of the lede with titles directly relating to the topic at hand. That is, based on what's already in the article, the list topic, the intersection of Jews and chess, meets GNG. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NLIST says that "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." The article, as it exists, provides all of the necessary references that show that the subject is backed by independent reliable sources. The arguments made more than 15 years ago at the original AfD simply don't fly. Alansohn (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is an exceptionally well-sourced list. Mccapra (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sukey, the fact that a different article with the same title was deleted 16 years ago is not a valid reason to wish to delete this one. What is your reasoning for why it should be deleted regardless? P-K3 (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Notable well-sourced list, and there is no WP:DELREASON --Kemalcan (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:OCEGRS states "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist" and uses Jewish Mathematicians as an example. Sukey (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) This is a list, not a category. 2) The combination is "a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right", as explained above. 3) You've inadvertently !voted a second time. Would you please change "delete" to "nominator's comment" or something like that? Thank you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see WP:EXEMPT1E that states "These principles apply equally to lists" The issue with this list is that it has the potential to be dangerous for anyone on it who is living. If someone wants to go through it and remove all the living players included in the list and add a BLP header at the top of the page that would remove the safety concern but doesn't address whether any of the deceased included in the list would have wanted to be included (e.g. Bobby Fischer). It's surprising nobody else has an issue with this, particularly considering Wikipedia guidelines for BLPs. Sukey (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't really matter whether players "would have wanted to be included", especially if they are deceased. If their are reliable sources saying that they are jewish, there is no reason for them not to be listed as such. Now I'm not an expert on BLPs, but you can certainly list their religion. bop34 • talk • contribs 18:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Per Kemalcan above, and per my reply to Sukey. Also, the list clearly makes sense to have, as shown by "The topic of Jewish participation in chess is discussed extensively in academic and popular literature.", "Although Jews make up less than 0.2% of the world's population, of the first 13 undisputed world champions, over 50% were Jewish, including the first two." bop34 • talk • contribs 18:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I skimmed through the article, checked the uncited Joshua Waitzkin. There in nothing in his article about him being Jewish, apart from categories and a link to this article. As I understand it, this is not ok in WP-land. Also, the article (List of Jewish chess players) use JInfo.org as ref a lot, which doesn't seem obviously WP-good, especially not for living people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment PrimeHunter pointed out in the Tea House that the Jewish Virtual Library maintains similar lists so I will withdraw my nomination (and keep a watch on the page in case anyone else nominates it in the future). I'll follow up on the issues you found. (Didn't want you to feel your comment was disregarded when I withdraw this.) Sukey (talk) 01:06, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relativistic Newtonian dynamics[edit]

Relativistic Newtonian dynamics (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. Article written by YaakovJoseph to promote the work of Yaakov Friedman and Joseph Steiner. Only uses WP:PRIMARY sources, which were published in the borderline journal Europhysics Letters. I don't think there exists any secondary sources, the main article [7] has been cited a grand total of 2 times by people other than the authors. Also, all the arXiv pre-prints are in the "gen-ph" section, reserved for crackpots. Tercer (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Barely cited in any publications not by the inventors themselves, and then in passing mentions within papers that are rather marginal themselves. I'm not even sure they know that the work is supposed to be an alternative to general relativity. One of them says: The discrepancy ... is considered to originate in general relativity, and is the subject of many different calculations, which obtain similar values (e.g, Friedman and Steiner, 2016). Another is similar: all of [general relativity's] predictions have been tested and verified in different limits [2]. In the weak field approximation, observations like the precise measurement of the perihelion advance of Mercury [citation here to Friedman and Steiner] ... show an impeccable agreement with the observations at solar system length scales. That's amazingly superficial, almost like the authors of the later papers Googled for something recent about the Mercury's perihelion precession and just stuck in whatever they found. No in-depth coverage in secondary sources means no wiki-notability. There's nothing to say, and no reason to try saying anything. XOR'easter (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not at all notable fringe stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG, with coverage limited to a few poorly-cited articles from the creators of the topic. — MarkH21talk 22:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW - never in 20 years have we ever published original research, and everybody knows that by now. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remyl[edit]

Remyl (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:BAND; unsourced and I can't find any significant coverage of this group, nor any other indication of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. No independent sources, no coverage, nothing. They don't even have an article on the Norwegian Wikipedia. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that there is no evidence of notability. Every search I tried google asked "Did you mean anything other than Remyl? I've never heard of them." That was a bit amusing on it's own because google still pulled the Remyl musical group sidebar information from Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipal roads in Markham, Ontario[edit]

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

I'm lumping these two articles together, as they are both indiscriminate lists of local roads, many with no significance. Both articles are very poorly sourced and make no attempt to ascribe the notability of the roads chosen for inclusion in the list. Standard practise for Ontario roads is a list for upper tier municipalities, i.e. List of numbered roads in York Region. Markham and Vaughan seem to have spilled through the cracks, as they are the only lower-tier municipalities in Ontario (of 241) to have a list of roads.

Now, I'd just redirect these to the article I just linked... but they are unlikely search terms, and I'd rather that bit of salt to discourage re-creation in the form of an AfD. -- Floydian τ ¢ 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Ontario's local government system is weird enough already, best to trim out inconsistencies. Awmcphee (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 21:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL, WP:50k, and WP:GNG. Let's move on. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These were both created by an editor who used to try to create articles about every individual road in Markham and Vaughan, all the way down to residential cul-de-sacs with no discernible notability claims but existing and no locatable reliable sourcing but maps. A list at the regional municipality level already exists, and is all that's needed. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M.U.K[edit]

M.U.K (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 has been unsourced and blatantly promotional since at least 2013, but on top of that, this person doesn't seem to pass WP:ARTIST, although I'm not entirely sure. The magazine article in the external link section could be significant coverage (but it's unclear to me whether this magazine itself is in any way notable) and I can't find anything else online. Lennart97 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNG fail. All I see in a search are Pokemon items, and a site that says M.U.K. means Marine Utility Knife. This is basically unsourced self-promotion. --- Possibly (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As a visual artist his name seems to have different permutations, with different numbers of periods from zero to three (this article title uses two), and those generate a few search results but they are basic directory listings and self-uploads. The article says he has released albums under the names "Fre(e)d, in solo" and "Moontain" and I can find nothing on those except basic social media entries. Some of the listed albums have been self-uploaded to Bandcamp and the like. None of the above satisfy WP's rules for reliable sources or significant coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails in GNG, not enough sources. GooeyMitch (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this fails GNG by miles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG Devokewater 20:48, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

La Voce di New York[edit]

La Voce di New York (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 homepage of this website (namely, the footer) claims it is located in "The United Nations Headquarters New York, NY 10017", which is fake news: this website has nothing to do with the UN. In the article, it claims to be "a newspaper", although it may well be considered a blog, currently ranked #1,237,472 according to Alexa. WP:NOTABILITY, WP:PROMO and WP:BLOGS are the major issues, but in Talk:La Voce di New York you could also find WP:POV, WP:PUFFERY, WP:PEACOCK and probable undisclosed WP:COI. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update I am NOW in the position to demonstrate a GIGANTIC undisclosed COI that Modulato has in this article and that explains why he has so vehemently been trying to get VNY's article deleted over the past 10 days. Admins, please talk to me! This is about SPI and LTA Passani (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update the editor actually works with the website, although he refuses to disclose his COI. For example, see https://www.lavocedinewyork.com/author/luca-passani/ —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 07:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NO COI: as I have explained (in this very page and in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#La_Voce_di_New_York) the fact that I wrote for VNY in the past does not imply a COI anymore than someone with a Facebook profile as a Facebook COI. I observe that the user who has nominated the article for deletion has pervicaciously refused to state that he/she has no WP:COI (User talk:Modulato#La_Voce_di_New_York_and_WP:COI). Passani (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ROTFL, so year 2021 means "in the past"? —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 12:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In fact, I may even write more articles in the future. VNY is open to contributions from anyone who has something meaningful to say. Passani (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is entirely promotional and there is only the barest of substance under all the fluff. Mccapra (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 11:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the article's original author and I think that the point is being missed here. La Voce di New York is a solid online newspaper with contributions from a lot of people including reputable and well known Italian journalists (details provided at Talk:La Voce di New York, but I could name countless other journalists). As far as WP:COI, it is not my case. While I did contribute articles to the newspaper in the past (I'm an Italian native speaker), I am not affiliated with the newspaper: I have not received any compensation, I don't plan to receive any compensation in the future, I am not part of the editorial board. Because of this, I maintain that there is no COI. Of course I followed VNY over the years, which made me knowledgeable and motivated enough to use my time to create the article. In fact, I would appreciate if the admin that is so passionately arguing for the deletion of the article could confirm that there is not some kind of reverse WP:COI at play here. About the article being promotional, I had already offered to address that issue in Talk:La Voce di New York and asked for guidance. That part was disregarded, while —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ. proceeded to request the deletion of the page. So, I humbly ask: what's the process here? If I went back and modified all the parts that could be interpreted as promotional, can we get the article to stay? I see that the Italian Wikipedia has translated the article making the content more sober in the process. Would something along those lines be considered a reasonable compromise? Passani (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is promotional (and self-published) in its entirety; assuming the website needs an article, it should be rewritten from scratch. As for it.wikipedia.org, it is a different project that has nothing to do with this AfD. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 14:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again. I am all for finding a reasonable compromise that would still keep the page up, because it is my belief that VNY qualifies for a WP article. The question I am asking is: if I was to rewrite the article from scratch along the lines of what was done (by someone else) for the Italian version, would this make the deletion thing go away? Passani (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 17:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user who placed the deletion note keeps spreading fake news and refusing to acknowledge evidence (in Talk:La Voce di New York) that what is reported in the article is correct. I requested multiple times to confirm that there is no WP:COI (i.e. a will to damage VNY for whatever reason), but that request has been ignored. Can some WP admin look at this and advise? Mildly put, there's something fishy going on here Passani (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You have avoided the question once more: can you positively affirm that you have no WP:COI wrt VNY (which, btw, is not my website)? Passani (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Wikipedia editor who read this article and decided to nominate it for the aforementioned reasons. The fact that you objected to the nomination and got furious doesn't mean that I have a COI with your website. By the way, you said that you used to work with the website; you should also avoid personal attacks. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have carefully avoided affirming that you don't have a WP:COI. Yet I asked you several times. I maintain that I am knowledgeable about VNY but do not have a WP:COI. I wrote a few articles for them, but never received any compensation, don't plan to receive it, I am not part of the board, I cannot represent VNY in any capacity. So no COI for me. But obviously there's COI involved for you. Passani (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem a bit confused. Conflict of interest doesn't necessarily mean paid contributions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 13:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that I have no Conflict of interest. You have not affirmed that you have no COI (in fact I strongly suspect that you do and are using anonymity to hide it. Passani (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article Author here. I am not sure why you are saying that I am not acting in good faith. I think that mentions by RAI (Italian State TV), La Repubblica, Di Blasio's letter and the Amerigo award, are all independent sources. Anyway, as stated before, I am willing to work to improve the article so that it meets WikiPedia standards. I could use some guidance, at this point. If being featured in TV programs in State TV is not considered an independent source, I am a bit at a loss about what is. Thanks Passani (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that you do not consider articles featuring VNY by RAI and La Repubblica sufficiently notable apparently, but no explanation is being provided on why. Could this be a language problem? What about Bill Di Blasio's letter? Looking at WP:NNEWSPAPER, I see that other criteria are listed for notability of magazines, newspapers and other pubblications. It seems to me that VNY falls squarely under the The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works. criteria. Google Scholar will lead to several citations of VNY articles in academic work. Letting Google count the number of VNY pages returns a remarkable 60,000. I think only about 20k of those pages are articles, but still a pretty significant amount that vouches for the relevance of the newspaper in the Italian news media landscape. Of course, if I went looking for citations by other websites, that would bring up a ton of references to VNY articles. Passani (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad those results are not "academic works" proper. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 07:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad (for you) those results are academic works proper. While you are here... I still need to see your claim that you have no WP:COI in this article, yet I asked many times. You have been dedicating significant effort to taking down the VNY article, without significant contributions to any other pages. In the past, you have focused on a few selected articles. Your profile does not say much about you, but you exhibit significant knowledge of Wikipedia's mechanisms and processes. Time to come clean. Do you have a COI? Passani (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no conflicts of interest with any Wikipedia articles, and you should not accuse people of being "haters", "vandals", "cyber attackers" or "COI editors" just because your article has been nominated. That being said, you are off topic.
As for your results, the first is not even an article, and the second is a self-published book. I don't have enough time to check the others. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 21:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once more, an answer that avoids the question and an attempt to muddy the water. I was referring to the long lists of references to VNY articles that Google scholars brings up. You have repeatedly refused to look at the evidence I have provided and refused to look for consensus on the content of the article. My only hope is that admins will look closely at the provided evidence and reach their own conclusions on who is acting honestly here. Passani (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It would be nice if you could identify yourself when you cast a vote. Anyway, there is plenty of room to demonstrate that the article meets the threshold for notability of newspapers according to WP:NNEWSPAPER. Passani (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to create an account to participate in a deletion discussion. The closing admin does have the prerogative to discount or reduce the weight of arguments made by un- or newly-registered editors. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something very suspicious is going on here. First someone mentions that Modulato may be a sockpuppet and long-time abuser on your page, and you delete the comment without a reason. Then an anonymous vote shows up here and Modulato immediately corrects the wikitext to make it look good, followed by your immediate comment in support of the anonymous user. I smell sockpuppet/meatpuppet from 10 miles away. Passani (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passani the best way to establish notability for the article is to show it meets WP:GNG by showing it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Italia Oggi looks like one source, RAI probably another as I couldn't hear it without registering. Other sources don't look independent: La Repubblica looks like an interview with Stefano Vaccara and Di Blasio's letter and the Amerigo award are both referenced to La Voce di New York. WP:NNEWSPAPER is a WP:ESSAY so it is not conclusive. TSventon (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon the RAI website does not really require registration in the sense that SSO with a multitude of social accounts will get you to the content. If you do login, you will see (1:10) RAI's cameraman follow Vaccara inside the UN building and interviewing him (in his UN office!) about La Voce di New York. About Di Blasio's letter, you can find it at this link. It was written by Di Blasio's office and signed by Di Blasio. La Repubblica interviews Stefano Vaccara inside the UN building as well (this was 2013, when VNY was at its inception). La Repubblica and Il Corriere are Italy's two top newspapers, you don't get an interview with them that easily. Amerigo's award is referenced by the Amerigo website and it's an initiative endorsed by the US embassy in Rome. About WP:NNEWSPAPER, it may not be conclusive (nothing is at this point), but VNY does qualify for notability accoding to it. Passani (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails wp:GNG92.40.192.10 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost all sources cited in the article are to the newspaper itself. The award mentioned in the "Awards, Recognitions and Acknowledgements" section was also set up by this newspaper, not awarded to it. The only independent source cited, an article in la Repubblica [8], contains only a couple of brief mentions of the newspaper. Nothing to show satisfying WP:GNG or WP:ORG here. Nsk92 (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it looks like I missed a few sources listed at the start of References. Of them one, Italia Oggi, does seem to provide significant coverage of the subject. I have not been able to access the RAI TV report but in general TV and printed interviews with the subjects themselves do not contribute to their notability. De Blasio's letter was published in La Voce di New York so it again doesn't count unless there are other sources that discuss this letter. There is still far too little here for satisfying WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability requires significant coverage of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources. Most of the references now in the article fall far short of that standard. The first reference is an interview with VNY's editor Stefano Vaccara, and is a recapitulation of its early coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is not significant coverage of VNY. The second reference is an interview with Vaccara, which does not establish notability because it is not independent. The third reference, an article in Italia Oggi, appears to be significant coverage, but I do not read Italian. A complicating factor is that Vaccara used to work for Oggi. This seems to be the most promising reference. Reference #4 is something written by Vaccara for VNY, and therefore of no value for establishing notability. Reference #5 verifies that VNY won a non-notable award but does not devote significant coverage to VNY. It is a passing mention. That does not establish notability. References #6, #7 and #8 were published in VNY, are not independent, and therefore do not establish notability. The ninth reference appears to be a video interview with Vaccara (correct me if I am wrong), and if so, does not establish notability. References #10, #11, #12 and #13 were published in VNY, are not independent, and therefore do not establish notability. Reference #14 is about recipients of an award that VNY gives, and does not include any significant coverage of VNY itself, and does not establish notability. Reference #15 is a duplicate of reference #5. Reference #16 was published in VNY, is not independent, and is of no value in establishing notability. This debate has been damaged by the fact that the original author has an obvious COI and yet vehemently denies their COI, attacks other editors and is bludgeoning this discussion. That is most unfortunate and I urge the editor to correct their disruptive behavior. But I made my decision based only on an assessment of the sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:33, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, California[edit]

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

It's not clear why all roads seem to lead here in the oldest topos, but all map evidence is that it was an isolated railroad siding/station and nothing more. There is a large foundation which could have accommodated a station building, but it doesn't show up on the topos. I would have just prodded this, but searching is, as you can imagine, not terribly fruitful. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could it have been the lonely water stop named "Rod"? Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No post office. Non-notable railway station: [9] and [10] so WP:STATION applies. I think Rod station was elsewhere, the Rich Station reference is from 1915, whereas the lonely water stop named "Rod" states that the name Rod was from the early 1900's - so Rod and Rich are probably different. It looks to me like that Suckow found colemanite when drilling on a ranch four miles from Rich Station. Suckow's deposit eventually became the Rio Tinto Borax Mine. In 1927, more borax was found near Rich Station, see [11]. Searching for '"Rich Spur" Mojave' finds a few railfan websites that are not WP:RS. As Rich seems to be only a station and is only mentioned in passing in trivial articles, it does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search does not find anything notable, both the nom and user Cxbrx are unable to find anything. Jeepday (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SNOW. "There's no there there." Bearian (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Agree it looks like it was a rail station, and was probably put into USGS as a populated place because it appears on topo maps. If it had a station house it was "populated" at one point, but I'm not seeing evidence of any notability in any event, even if Kernite was discovered near there.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:56, 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. Failed to establish that WP:ORG is met by the sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky commando films[edit]

Lucky commando films (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 third-party reliable sources to indicate notability; references are all the same recycled press releases. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The news articles mentioned in this page are independent sources of information and are not press releases Jiasally (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone glancing at the reference section can see that is clearly not the case. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may want to take a closer look at those 7 "big budget" movies. None of those are anywhere near a big-budget movie; they're either shorts, web series, or music videos. The last one in the list (which I've removed) was dated as "2022" and didn't seem to exist, as the links are either broken or go to different articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 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++ 14:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The production company is a notable company has produced many web series, films and short movies music Albms. It has enough citations on trusted reliable, independent resources such as: passes WP:NCORP

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

Powerfultample (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The page recycles sources repeatedly and makes films that don't have Wikipedia articles. —ÐW(T·C) 20:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The production company is a notable company has produced . It has enough citations on trusted reliable, independent resources such as: Nabutiger123 (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC) — Nabutiger123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: Those news articles are engaged in this , they have big all the articles and are independent, these articles can be trusted . — Ppp00007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Despite the vocal single edit accounts, there does not seem to be any reason to keep this. My search did not find anything. There is are no other language articles, given that they produce in languages other then English, it would seem self evident that don't meet Hindi notability. Jeepday (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NCOMP/GNG. I did my own BEFORE and the company has next to zero visibility. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:55, 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 merge to Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. Sandstein 10:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Iranian conflict[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arab-Iranian conflict (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 has multiple issues because its contents are mainly overlapped with Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, and does not meet WP:NEVENTS, WP:PLOT and WP:NOR -- Wendylove (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose : Firstly, half of the body of the article is about Iran-Iraq war, not Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict and secondly, in my humble opinion, this article needs to be expanded (with other current and ancient conflicts), not deleted.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what sources say there is an "Arab–Iranian conflict"? The one source I checked that doesn't fail verification on this point is the 2020 book (so it's probably too soon to tell if its ideas are the majority view or not), and it only deals with the interwar era, long before this article which starts in 1980. (t · c) buidhe 14:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article has already been nominated for deletion in May 2020, resulting in "Keep" consensus. Participants of that 2020 discussion should be notified of this concurrent re-proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 08:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively the information and soruces into the main article; right now it's a WP:POVFORK, then redirect. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 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. Consensus is that WP:MILUNIT #2 is met, and very importantly WP:V is met. There is no "weak keep" close, so this will have to do. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5th Nasr Division[edit]

5th Nasr Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been DEPRODed without any sources present. WP:BEFORE gave me some mentions with operations of the islamic Guard. Suggest redirect/merge into Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or delete. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just nothing there in the way of coverage. I assume that it exists but without any coverage who knows? Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the source cited regarding the commander mentions the 5th Nasr Division, merge - would be our first entry for an IGRC division. Otherwise delete. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MILUNIT #2. Certainly appears to exist. How can divisions not be notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because the opening wording to MILUNIT states "presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." and that is completely lacking here. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware, but I still can't believe that a division is not considered to be notable. Common sense issue. WP:IAR and all that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is what matters, nothing else. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Sourcing is one part of the guideline for notability--and the entire notbility guidelien and all itssubrules is just a gudieline, and many attempts to make it policy have all failed. That means that the criteria in it are only guides to what is notable in the sense of being worth covering in the encyclopedia . (The actual policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE). Coving mulitary units down to this level is far from. indiscriminate. So it meets the policy. For areas and aspects with difciult to find ocverage such as this, we can reasonable use a bvery broad interpretation of applicable guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that keeping a completely unsourced page is ok? We don't even know for sure that this unit isn't a hoax. Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Intothatdarkness - most of the sources are in Farsi, but I see a large number from what appear to be WP:NEWSORGs. 1 2 3 4. Using machine translation it is clear that the unit existed, that it had battalions and brigades beneath it, that it was commanded by officers of Brigadier rank or above, and that it suffered significant casualties in the Iran-Iraq war. PS- for the avoidance of doubt, even if we discount WP:MILUNIT as a (highly useful) essay, the sources presented also make this a basic WP:GNG pass as they constitute multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV in WP:NEWSORG sources. FOARP (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FOARP. Vaticidalprophet 20:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on the basis that there is some coverage in sources. The idea being spouted above that we don't need sources to demonstrate notability is utterly stupid. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:32, 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir C. V. Raman Institute of Technology and Sciences[edit]

Sir C. V. Raman Institute of Technology and 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)

No RS with a BEFORE. Not to be confused with a similar named research institute. No inherent notability. Advertisement. Vikram Vincent 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin: The keep !votes have not provided any RS or policy to support their assertion. VV 17:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what I can tell all the sources in the article are either primary or otherwise connected to the organization in a way that would make them non-usable for notability. There's was nothing in a BEFORE that isn't extremely trivial or would pass WP:NORG either. So, I'm going with delete. Unless someone can come up with three good sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a private institution hence there is no inherent notability. 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 13:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in the other AfD where you responded the same exact way WP:NORG pretty clearly says "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." --Adamant1 (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 06:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accredited private institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- MRRaja001 (talk) 13:49, 6 April 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 14:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Private educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - weak presumptions of notability are simply not enough. WP:NORG is extremely clear about what is required and this does not meet any aspect of it. We need sourcing that establishes notability not just bare-minimum database coverage that merely proves that the institution exists. I'll admit that I'm not from India so I wouldn't necessarily have access to all of the necessary sources but there is no significant coverage in any of the searches that I did attempt and I'm not convinced that we ought to assume that such coverage exists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:10, 14 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Cadwallader[edit]

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

Cadwallader does not appear to meet any of the notability guidelines for acadmics from 2-8 on the list. An argument might be made for the first one - that he's had significant impact on the discipline, but frankly, I just don't think he hits that bar either. Not every textbook author or editor is notable. He certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG. PianoDan (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PianoDan (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PianoDan (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to new article per WP:BIO1E. His coauthored textbook, Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach, appears to be notable, so if anyone wants to make an article on that, we can redirect there. I found seven published reviews of it (including a minor academic spat between two different reviewers in the same journal); see the article for links. He is coauthor of another textbook Harmony and Voice Leading but I think he was only added as a coauthor to its fourth edition and I can't find reviews that mention his contribution to it. I don't think that's enough for academic or other notability for Cadwallader himself. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete even for a low citation field, this person is not notable with a total of 34 citations over a full career of 40 years. --hroest 13:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Edit: I retract my !vote since Russ has found additional evidence and I am not familiar enough with the field to make a reasonable decision. --hroest 20:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are you doing this search? Google scholar searches for author:allen-cadwallader show me citations of 633 and 301 for the two textbooks, then 34, 23, 22, 16, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • David Eppstein I used Microsoft Academic for this since there was no profile on GS and that was my link here: [30] since there is no aggregate number of citations in GS. But I agree, maybe MA is not the best here since it does not seem to pick up citations from books. But even if you add together all the GS citations I dont think you can get enough to pass NPROF. --hroest 21:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think to understand that his book (with David Gagné) Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach, mentioned above, is one of the most often used books for Schenkerian teaching in the US, with four editions on OUP. I fail to understand how a book could be considered notable without its author being considered notable as well. Cadwallader, in addition, is the author, coauthor or editor of several other books, e.g. Trends in Schenkerian Research, 1990, or the Acts of several of the Mannes College International Schenker Symposiums. It is true that this all may not make him extremely notable, but he is mentioned in several other WP articles, so that deleting his article might be problematic. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As David Eppstein pointed out above - being the author of a notable textbook falls under WP:BIO1E. His links from other WP articles are almost entirely in the form of an author's name in a reference list. Such a link is not at all problematic to remove, and does not confer notability. The way to establish notability would be to directly address the criteria in WP:PROF, preferably with direct references to sources that verify that he meets one of those criteria. PianoDan (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While I hear the WP:BLP1E concerns clearly, I've added the edited volume to the article mentioned above by Hucbald.SaintAmand -- it does have several reviews on JSTOR [31][32][33]. I also found a review of the 5th ed. of the textbook in a reliable-looking-through-not-great-source [34] (there's a review of the 4th ed. on the same site). While an edited volume doesn't contribute much to notability, I think that (with the solid citations and textbook) it's enough to save it from WP:BLP1E world. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For clarity: Cadwallader is listed as co-author on two textbooks, Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach,, and Harmony and Voice Leading. The SECOND one is far more notable, but Cadwallader was only added as co-author after the death of one of the principal authors. It is still universally referred to as "Aldwell and Schachter" in the theory community, which raises doubts about whether it helps make Cadwallader himself notable. Analysis of Tonal Music IS directly associated with Cadwallader, and so relates more to the question at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎PianoDan (talk • contribs)
      • Yes, thank you. I'd pass over the fact that Analysis of Tonal Music is also a textbook. So, to sum up, my weak keep case is that Analysis of Tonal Music is clearly notable, and clearly significantly tied to the subject. By itself it would be a BLP1E. The multiple reviews of Trends in Schenkerian Research (though an edited volume), and the well-known Harmony and Voice Leading (on which the subject replaced Aldwell for two editions after their death) both contribute to notability. I don't think either one would be enough by itself, but together I see them as overcoming BLP1E, hence the weak keep !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Page is mostly just ISBN stuff. —ÐW(T·C) 20:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG.--MadD (talk) 11:17, 8 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 Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jakanari reserve forest[edit]

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

Ok, I know I may be doing this too much, but there are no sources here! JTZegersSpeak
Aura 20:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Nom RE: "there are no sources here!" lack of sources on the article is not a criteria for deletion. I am sure you have read WP:BEFORE assuming you have searched for references, in the future call out in your nomination that you searched and could not find references. Jeepday (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search does not find anything to meet WP:GNG, there are no reference on the article or claims of notability. Jeepday (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. It's maintained by the forestry institute of that university [35], or at least that's the closest connection I could figure out. Agree there is not enough material to show separate notability - all sources are excerpts from either the linked page, or an unsourced teaching materials page that lists "important Indian forests". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Elmidae. I did some looking and didn't come up with anything other than someone caught a viper nearby once and brought it to the university that Elmidae linked to above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 14 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

College of Science & Engineering, Jhansi[edit]

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

Written like an ad. Refs have paid ads. No RS available. Not inherently notable. Creator is a SPA. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, I think we are up to like 8 or 9 of these being deleted and like 1 (or 0) being kept despite your claim that consensus is to keep them. At some point for the sake of accuracy Etc. Etc. you should strike your keep vote comments about it out. Since they are clearly wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Private institutions don't have any inherent notability. 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 14:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Peer WP:NORG, along with similar AfDs that resulted in the articles being deleted, an article about a private college has to pass the notability guidelines the same way any other organization does. By having enough adequate sources to make it notable. This college doesn't have the required sourcing for it to be notable though. So, there's no guideline based reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 06:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found even less than I usually do on these kinds of colleges. No link back to shit flow diagrams, wasn't used to lock up migrants during the pandemic and no one was hit by a car in front of it leading to protests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing even close to the depth of coverage required to pass WP:NORG, therefore, there is simply no alternative but to delete Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 14 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 merge to Ivory Coast–United States relations. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Cote d'Ivoire in Washington, D.C.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Embassy of Cote d'Ivoire in Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was the subject of a previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Cote d'Ivoire in Washington, D.C.) in 2013, the result was redirect/merge to Ivory Coast–United States relations. In 2017 the article was recreated but it still doesn't address the issues for which it was originally deleted, which is that embassies are not inherently notable. Fails WP:NBUILDING / WP:NORG / WP:GEOFEAT. Dan arndt (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:35, 24 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, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions: 2013-03 Embassy of Cote d'Ivoire in Washington, D.C. merge to Ivory Coast–United States relations
Hrm... ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per above Reywas92Talk 00:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search does not find enough to meet WP:GNG, existing policy does grant inherent notable, at this time the only possible choice is delete. If there is a successful push to grant inherent notable to embassies, the article can be recovered. Jeepday (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively and redirect (soft) as I've advocated in similar situations. The building itself is not so notable to have its own article, and the target article could be beefed up. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fetish Con[edit]

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

Looks to fail NEVENT. Created by a promotional SPA. Only -local- coverage, no evidence of wider significance, or, really any significance. WP is not a directory of conventions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even if you 100% discount local coverage, there's some nontrivial stuff in Rolling Stone and, according to the Chicago Tribune, a trade-published book America Unzipped: In Search of Sex and Satisfaction where it features heavily. Also seeing some Business Insider stuff, although obviously that's not quite so unimpeachable. Meanwhile, the local coverage is extensive and provides material for a much bigger and better article than the current one when coupled with the broader sourcing online and in print. Vaticidalprophet 20:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I second Vaticidalprophet, there is (admittedly limited) wider coverage and a wealth of local coverage with which the article could be improved. Jthekid15 (talk) 11:01, 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 no consensus. The quality of the sources appears to be borderline with an equal split of opinions on either side. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Slam[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only coverage I could find in a somewhat reliable source is this. There are some other reviews in places like metal-archives.com, but I don't believe those are reliable enough to establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Caroline and Restless are notable labels. They're reviewed in the Chicago Tribune. Reviewed in Blabbermouth and Decibel; don't know much about those sources, but they're listed as reliable. Caro7200 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Caro7200 listed some facts that establish notability, so I think he meant "Weak Keep", not "Weak Delete". Coupled with the things he said, some of the members are also part of Suicidal Tendencies, which is a notable band, so I think multiple aspects of notability are met. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A band doesn't become notable because members of the band are notable themselves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not know that is the norm here, as I am mainly active on huwiki, where that is an indication of notability. The "notability for music" essay or guideline was imported to huwiki from here, so I guessed we have inherited your rules. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the band had multiple notable individuals, it would be a consideration. Members being in multiple bands is not a consideration for the band. Also, if there is no way to source any content, how many notable members there are in the band is irrelevant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These statements by S.F.Radish and Walter are not necessarily true. See criterion #6 at WP:NBAND. However, for the band under discussion here, it is worth wondering whether all those blue-linked members really are notable, and the "loop" mentioned in the guideline might be relevant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This statement by Doomsdayer520 is not necessarily true. See the preamble of NBAND where it states the subject "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" (emphasis mine). It does not state that it is immediately notable. There has to be significant coverage related to the item, not just a passing mention. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm sure this vote won't help with consensus but I gotta be honest. Above, Caro7200 mentioned some reviews in reliable sources. The band got lucky with an album review in the Chicago Tribune, but read it here: [36]. It is one paragraph long, only mentions one song, and uses platitudes like "combination of anger and persistence" that could be said about anyone. Reliable source, but not significant. On the other hand, reviews at Blabbermouth [37] and Decibel [38] are quite robust. That helps with criterion #1 at WP:NBAND, and being signed to two notable labels helps with criterion #5. Having several members that are notable for other endeavors helps with criterion #6 (though this is admittedly a stretch and the notability of some of those people is suspect). Some good news and some bad news in this analysis, but the good manages to squeak past the bad. In any case the article needs to be cleaned up up pretty badly. And their name is brilliant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:NBAND with the sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete there seems to be some coverage for this band but it still remains rather limited. If none of their works have charted on Billboard, then notability would still remain a doubt. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A group doesn't need to chart on Billboard in order to be considered notable. The article needs cleaning up and references to be added, but as per Doomsdayer520 I believe they are notable enough to be kept. pinktoebeans (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But none of the members are themselves notable. I checked their bios and they all fail GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. release on Caroline and Restless are good for wp:music#5. Online coverage scrapes in for #1. Likely to have been covered in magazines of the day. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll notice that the subjects with articles were not actually notable and have undergone their own AfDs (or PRODs) and so the argument that this band had multiple notable members is no longer valid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 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 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parya Vatankhah[edit]

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

Tagged since April 2018 for more citations and notability. Attempted to find citations but not able to find much in terms of WP:RS. Jooojay (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jooojay (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:01, 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. Fork with no meaningful history to merge. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political views of Tucker Carlson[edit]

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

Here we have an article full of opinions of a well-known pundit, who generates plenty of news coverage--but we already have a biography, and the question here is whether every opinion of his that is noted in the press needs to be gathered into a big heap that acquires encyclopedic notability only by virtue of weight. My opinion is no, this is not what we are supposed to do; it's not unlike the series of Person X on Twitter, where the community decided in the end that, and I paraphrase, not everything that is verified acquires stand-alone notability. I don't like the slippery slope argument very much, but it applies here: if this goes, then it goes for just about every single person who gets on TV or on social media, and there is no encyclopedic benefit to it. Take the important ones (secondary sources and editorial judgment should suffice), stick them (back) in his biography, and be done with it. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of the article was copied from Tucker_Carlson. — Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete duplicative of Tucker Carlson#Commentary so I fail to see why a separate redundant page is needed. Reywas92Talk 22:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Note that this doesn't need to be merged, the content copied over from Tucker Carlson was never removed in the first place. Tucker Carlson is a political commentator, it's fine for his biography to have a bulky section dedicated to his political views, having political views is quite literally his job, this is what he's notable for. I don't see the need to split the section off into another article, it's perfectly fine as it is at Tucker Carlson. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no reason for this fork to exist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The political views of America's most popular news/talk show host are worthy of a lot of coverage here, but this could all be condensed onto his own page, which is clearly preferable.SatoshiSoul (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete: This fact can be added to the main Carlson article; otherwise it is entirely duplicative. Llll5032 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is absolutely no reason to have this at all seperate from the article on Tucker Carlson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete As mentioned, almost all of this article is already mentioned on Tucker Carlson's page. No reason for his 'political views' to have their own page. Redoryxx (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:POVFORK (ironically). If Carlson's ideas or views were unusual or all over the place, a separate article would be useful. Rather, his views tend strongly to be consistent, run of the mill for today's Republicans, and to the right of center. So it fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Digital Agency[edit]

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:NCORP. A before search linked me to unreliable sources such as this, this & this Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only news coverage I can find is from press release republishers. Nothing I can find to establish real notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I disagree with the nominator because two of the bad links cited by her do not belong to the subject.

1. Greenslover.net and 2. Crunchbase Both were not used in the content either.

With the above, the subject meets the WP:NCORP and also the GNG as well. Thanks PizNNo (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hermesawards.com is certainly not reliable or independent. The Techcrunch article merely says that they conducted a poll. Thedrum is a website for marketers about marketing. Mobilemarketingmagazine is a non-notable award, digiday is a nomination for a non-notable award. MMA Global is another non-notable award. Greensolver isn't even a source, they're just trying to sell services. Crunchbase is a listing of companies and professionals and does not establish notability. Basically none of this adds anything towards WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PizNNo, all the sources you listed do not establish notability for the organization. I could do a source analysis table for you but @ScottishFinnishRadish, already did justice to them above. Celestina007 (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:ScottishFinnishRadish and User:Celestina007, Thanks for the insight. However, the point I am making in one of my claims is that the "Greensolver" and "Crunchbase" links which Celestina pointed to doesn't belong to the subject. Both belong to a different firm that goes by the same name. You can see that they weren't used in the content. PizNNo (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those is a reliable source that establishes notability. One is Crunchbase is just a list of companies that you can pay to search and get information on and the Greensolver link is just selling a wordpress theme that doesn't even appear related to the company. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Forbes[edit]

Josh Forbes (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 for not citing any sources. In addition, during my WP:BEFORE research I didn't find any reliable sources (only IMDb, which is just a bad source in general), which only makes the problem worse. JTZegersSpeak
Aura 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search does not find anything that meets WP:GNG there are no claims of notability in the article. Jeepday (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete music video directors have no presumed notability at all, we need good sources that clearly add to significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary reliable sources, and that is not here at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater 21:29, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle of Life[edit]

Cycle of Life (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. Apparently this happened in April 2008 and the expedition website has been seemingly dead for a while. Also completely unsourced and a POV article. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:26, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Brubaker[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG. Lettlerhello • contribs 19:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 19:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 19:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 19:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 19:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunate incident, but doesn't meet GNG for me. Intothatdarkness 21:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mztourist (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and likely a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a tragic death, but not a notable individual and a lack of SIGCOV. Zawed (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not a memorial. Does not rise to the level of meeting GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Horrible. My oldest brother was in the Coast Guard. We have never been a directory of memorial pages in 20 years, and everybody should know that by now. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater 21:31, 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 no consensus. Probably a trimming and a merge + redirect is what should happen here but there's no clear consensus and the level of involvement here to date suggests we are ultimately going to get a clear consensus. I'd suggest Spiderone be bold and do what they suggest, I dont see there being any real objections. Fenix down (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Thaghr al-Iraq Championship[edit]

2009 Thaghr al-Iraq Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arabic is not a language that I am proficient in so a WP:BEFORE search is admittedly difficult. I am nominating this article for deletion because one-off pre-season tournaments are almost always non-notable. The article itself does not contain any indication of importance or significance for this tournament.

The matches themselves are referenced to forum posts and neither of the two references used in the article show significant coverage. I therefore believe that this subject fails WP:GNG and, therefore, does not meet any notability guideline. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 23 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, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there a place for this somewhere on the site? The article includes the extent of the English language coverage, that coverage appears to be fine for GNG purposes, and appears to have been run as a one-off since the domestic calendar had some scheduling difficulties (43 teams were scheduled to partake in the first division that year), so it's probably more notable than your average friendly tournament. I have no idea how to search for Arabic coverage to save it, but I don't really support deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 01:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It could possibly be trimmed a bit and merged into 2009 in Iraqi football or any other appropriate target. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:00, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carps Corner, Virginia[edit]

Carps Corner, 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)

PROD ineligible due to the procedurally-closed nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia. Appears to have been a named road junction. No evidence it meets WP:GEOLAND, and my WP:BEFORE was unable to coverage that would rise to the bar of WP:GNG. Hog Farm Talk 17:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in the same county

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 17:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 17:38, 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. Sandstein 10:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GSK-789,472[edit]

GSK-789,472 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article created in 2011 about a potential psychiatric drug which was the subject of a then-recent academic paper. It does not appear to have undergone any published clinical trials since then, and there appears to be little to no coverage of it in any other sources; also, there are no citations of that paper which post-date 2012. My view is that it is simply not notable. Rhythdybiau (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page supplies no more than minimal information, and, perhaps more important, it is virtually forgotten in its field, cited just 5 times in 11 years, most recently in 2015. Not exactly a hot topic. Athel cb (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a stub and we have thousands of chemical and medical stubs with some that appear to serve little purpose as they are unlikely to be expanded further. However, I like to think of them as scaffolding; try clicking on "What links here" on the article page to see what I mean. CV9933 (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only reason for the extensive "What links here" list is the inclusion of this article in a template. Having lots of non-notable stubs strikes me as an argument for cleaning more of them up, not for keeping this one. PianoDan (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be interested to know what the Meodipt thinks, but then I noticed that the nominator added a deletion notification to their talk page archive so that would explain the lack of response from the article creator. For better consensus I would suggest that this is relisted for WikiProject Chemistry attention. CV9933 (talk) 10:21, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rancho Seco, California[edit]

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

This appears to be a failed subdivision: the grid of roads appears, but the houses mostly do not, and fifty years on it is still largely unpeopled. Searching is heavily masked by the nuclear power plant, but I didn't get any significant hits on it. It doesn't seem to be a notable place. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:14, 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 Keep There appears to exist enough notability to warrant the article staying in place, however strong sourcing would help to improve the article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José Martínez Gázquez[edit]

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

H-index of 10, high citation count under 90. None of his positions appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 16:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but I'm lukewarm about it). An h of 10 would be pretty unimpressive for a biochemist of essentially my age, but you can't expect the same for a philologist, for which it is closer to respectable, and compares well with h for another philologist that I've checked. Athel cb (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep while I know little of the field, he has gotten some honors including a PhD honoris causa and according to GS his citations would place him in the top 20 of the field: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&view_op=search_authors&mauthors=label%3Aphilology&btnG= which is impressive. --hroest 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That google scholar list is meaningless, it simply list those academics with a google scholar profile who have added Phililogy to their profile - If I look at my own profile I have keywords where I am in the top 4 of academics! So no, that is not a meaningful metric. Polyamorph (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I merely wanted to point out that this is a low citation field. It can be meaningless if you define your field to be narrow enough, but "philology" doesnt seem to be a narrow field to me. Also it is meaningful if you compare it to other fields such as this. But I agree, it may not be very meaningful but may provide some insight. The question is whether people in the field would tag themselves as such and how many of them are even on GS. --hroest 20:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given they appear to broadly satisfy WP:PROF, but should be tagged as poorly referenced! Also noting the extremely weak notability criteria for sports persons I am biased towards inclusion of biographies of academics who actually contribute to advancing human knowledge, as opposed to simply being known for kicking a ball around a muddy field. Polyamorph (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point, but even with academics we still want to include those that actually advance human knowledge and not simply everybody who ever published a paper. Once you try to define that, it becomes a bit more tricky and often there are no WP:RS on academics which makes the whole issue even harder. That is why we have WP:NPROF. --hroest 20:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly if someone in sports can have a Wikipedia article on the basis of a single entry in a sports statistics almanac, then we can afford to be a bit more lenient for academics. Personally I think WP:NPROF is too restrictive, but that's the nature of higher expectations in academia in general. But this is not part of my reasoning for my keep !vote since I believe that in broad terms WP:NPROF is satisfied, albeit borderline. Polyamorph (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polyamorph, I wholeheartedly agree. However, that's not the parameter for notability currently. Based on the current criteria, this person simply doesn't fit them. Onel5969 TT me 00:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with Polyamorph and onel5969 both and that is also what motivated my vote, but what I find most frustrating is how inconsistent the current criteria are used, in some cases we see strong articles about relatively strong academics deleted and then in other cases someone clearly non-notable in their early career gets kept. In general, if a person was given a tenure track professorship, that often means a committee of peers (more knowledgeable than Wikipedia editors about the field in question) decided that the contribution to research and scholarship of that person merits one of the highest positions at a University. Looking at the discussion here it clearly looks like we actually have noone even remotely familiar with the field here in Wikipedia,I see a biochemist, a physicist and a computational biologist here trying to figure out if a philologist is notable. --hroest 03:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We very clearly do not want to deem every person holding a tenure track position to be notable. 15 years ago I think some people failed to think of how such a view would play our on a global scale. I am coming to think even our deeming those who hold named chairs as notable may not be reasonable considering the huge number of named chairs some universities have come to have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete well we actually are starting to rid Wikipedia of articles on people with single entry sports almanac listings for cricket. If we judged everyone as we judged sports figures, Wikipedia would be total junk. Reliable sources are needed to tell about someone and they are lacking here. Plus just a citiation level is not enough. People really cannot articulate how Martinez has been a truly major influence in his field. Mere saying his citation level is high is just not enough. I am not convinced he passes academic notability point 1, and no one has argued he passes any other. Having special honors with your Ph.D. absolutely in no way at all suggests someone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnpacklambert This is not about "graduating with special honors", he got a Doctor Honoris Causa from a German university which is not related to his actual PhD, it is an honorary degree and counts like an award (that very few academics actually have). This tells us that his academic work is notable enough for such an award and that his work is widely known outside his own country/language area and recognized in Germany. Both of these things clearly add to his notability. --hroest 13:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, that is what you mean. That is not at all a sign of notability. Lots of people get this who are not notable, and the ones who are notable who get it are clearly notable for other things. That in no way is a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnpacklambert see below, honorary degrees are specifically listed as being a sign of notability. Not every academic gets honorary degrees, so this is indeed a distinction in an academics career. --hroest 16:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – In my view, receiving a Doctor Honoris Causa from a university can be a potential sign of notability, as per WP:ANYBIO, which states that subjects are likely to be notable if they meet any of the standards listed there, including point #1 of WP:ANYBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". Of course, this does not guarantee notability. North America1000 08:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Northamerica1000 Johnpacklambert honorary degrees are even clearly mentioned here as being partially' satisfying, so they are not much by themselves but should be considered for notability since not every academic receives them (by far): For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: major academic awards (they would also automatically satisfy Criterion 2), highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships); invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies, where giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline; named lectures or named lecture series; awards by notable academic and scholarly societies; honorary degrees; and others. Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose. Again, I am baffled by the total conviction displayed by Johnpacklambert of being right in his opinion on Wikipedia policy while at the same time being utterly incorrect on stated policy. --hroest 16:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I found a couple newspaper stories on his honorary doctorate (one added to article). I think that gives a weak case for WP:PROF#C2, and that his numbered membership in the Reial Acadèmia de Bones Lletres de Barcelona and associate foreign corresponding membership in Société des Antiquaires de France go some way towards #C3. I also found a fair number of reviews of his edited works, and fewer (but nonzero) of the authored ones. So the case is weak, but present, along multiple lines of notability beyond trying to divine what citation numbers in philology mean. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 15 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polly (fashion doll)[edit]

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

Generic or genericised product that does not appear to be notable: nothing found on G-searches. Baffle☿gab 03:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Probably fake. —ÐW(T·C) 20:37, 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 redirect to List of Border representative cricketers#H. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hanley[edit]

Anthony Hanley (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. This one is sourced to the traditional cricket databases but also to a national archive page about him being a lieutenant, which isn't enough for a military pass, and an ancestry site, which don't count for notability purposes (we all are eligible for an ancestry page.) A WP:BEFORE search brought up no possible sources for improvement. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers; per apparent consensus on the article talk page. The extremely trivial pass of NCRIC is heavily outweighed by the failure of GNG. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers As per Wjemather, 1 FC match, would like to know if there was anything else in the London Gazette announcement of his award though. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD as usual though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Beyond time something was done about these mass-created permastubs based on extremely trivial/non-existent passes of SNGs. SNGs are there because people wanted exceptions to GNG's requirement of two instances of SIGCOV in reliable, independent, sources. This is NOT an invitation to go on a perma-stub-creation spree based on some bare table you found! Spending 90 second per article (some of which is spent putting the templates on the talk page?) is no way to write an encyclopedia. FOARP (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. No need to be so passive-aggressive FOARP. Happy for a redirect here, he does appear to have been involved in the legal profession in some capacity, though books are snippet view only and from what I can tell don't stand out. StickyWicket (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per AOTA Noah 💬 19:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - as stated above, looks unlikely that any coverage will be found beyond the stats of the one game he played in, in a period where (understandably) covering cricket matches was a lower priority. DevaCat1 (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Seems sensible in this case. StickyWicket (talk) 22:38, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Mack (catcher)[edit]

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

High school prospect. Non-notable per WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 TT me 16:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Watch this guy make it to the big leagues and become a star player or something. Oooh, we're gonna be blushing on our way to recreate the article. AdoTang (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only is basketball are high school prospects really maybe even close to being notable. Until Mack is in the majors and playing games he will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. The article is so short that if he makes it pro it can be recreated easily. --Kbabej (talk) 16:01, 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 redirect to List of Predator (franchise) comics#Limited series. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predator: Bad Blood[edit]

Predator: Bad Blood (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 site any sources, which is a violation of WP:GNG. JTZegersSpeak
Aura 15:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, it's cite. AdoTang (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AdoTang: Haha whoopsJTZegersSpeak
Aura 19:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Predator (franchise) comics where it is already listed. Note that not citing any sources is not actually a violation of GNG. No sources are technically required, but the GNG-worthy sources do need to WP:NEXIST (just a couple sections below GNG). (Obviously it's best practice to cite them. This article does cite sources, just not inline, nor good ones.)
    That said, I could find one source that discusses the comic pretty well here, but that is still short another source. Maybe Wizard covered it back in the day. If something's out there that is presented here, I'll update my !vote. As it stands, redirecting as an alternative per WP:ATD-R seems suitable given that one piece. -2pou (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect unless sources (reviews, etc.) are provided to establish notability per WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denison University Squash Team[edit]

Denison University Squash 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)

A non notable university squash team. There are very few professional squash teams on wikipedia and no other university teams that I know of. Before doesn't return anything and there are just primary refs in the article. The article was created in 2009 by a single purpose account, the talk page has never been created. Desertarun (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:06, 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 merge to Container Terminal 9. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Container Terminal 9[edit]

Container Terminal 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is completely unreferenced and fails WP:GNG.

Article details a single container terminal in Hong Kong on Tsing Yi; no other terminals in the area have an article. Unlike articles for other container terminals, Container Terminal 9 doesn't appear to be notable or special at all, aside from a list of concerns, a fatal accident, and a brief construction dispute between the governments of China and the United Kingdom. The article itself appears to be stuck in the 2000s, most recently 2009; note "As recently as 2005" and "New road infrastructure" (for a project completed in 2009). AdoTang (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central Warwickshire Youth Football League[edit]

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

Subcounty youth league. Despite the array of citations, none of them are actually independent of the organisation, so do not count towards WP:GNG. Google searches do return some passing mentions such as this in the Bromsgrove Standard and this article in the Redditch Standard. Going through all of the ProQuest results also yields similar trivial coverage in local papers. No relevant hits in a British newspaper search despite the league existing for over 50 years. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:53, 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Froelich[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, given sources are at best passing mentions in terms of WP:RS and I have been unable to turn up anything better. Probably telling that both his Linkedin and Transfermarkt profile show up on the first page of his Google results. AngryHarpy‍talk 07:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍talk 07:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍talk 07:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vice-president of a political party's youth wing is not a role that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, and the footnotes depend far too strongly on primary sources, with not remotely close to enough reliable sources present to suggest that he would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold a more notable political office. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For some additional context, it is perhaps worth noting that while the German project does have an article on the current Young Alternative chairman, they don't have one on Froelich or any of the three other people he shares this position with. There have been some recent edits by the article creator in a clear attempt to address the notability concerns, but they don't add up to much. AngryHarpy‍talk 10:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have almost always deleted articles about youth leaders, from whatever continent. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venkateshwara Institute of Technology[edit]

Venkateshwara 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)

Too many issues by the templates already on the page. No RS with a BEFORE. Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS Vikram Vincent 04:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussi on has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This editor is talking about some nonexistent consensus. Several AFDs where they have !voted keep have been deleted. Unless they come up with proof to support their "consensus" their vote needs to be ignored. Vikram Vincent 10:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is unnecessarily personal. In fact, it has been long standing precedent to keep tertiary institutions. Consensus can change, and the consensus has been swinging in this particular regard lately, but this comment indicates an unfamiliarity with history here. Important factors can be, is it for-profit, who accredits it, and how long has it been in operation, does it have a substantial physical campus? Does it constribute to the body of published research? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, 78.26! Necrothesp and I have been sparring on multiple AFDs of a similar nature. Till date most of the nominated pages have been deleted. Yes, there was a consensus to keep tertiary educational institutions that did not have WP:RS to satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS but {{outcomes}} clearly states that consensus can change. Rather, if you have a look at these AFD stats one can gather that the consensus is changing to ensure that article of such nature strictly follow NSCHOOLS. VV 15:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2, Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online. The point I have raised on multiple occasions is that these are only institutions affiliated to a university and are not degree-awarding in themself. In fact, there is a concept of "private deemed university" which would satisfy #2. Thus, the argument to delete. VV 15:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nice copy-paste throwdown you two keep doing. AdoTang (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to satisfy WP:NSCHOOL which says "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." Chirota (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was unable to find multiple reliable sources addressing the organisation directly and in depth, therefore the organisation fails WP:NORG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another one with no vipers nearby, no protests over cars hitting pedestrians, no shit flow diagrams, no internment of migrants during a pandemic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 14 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. K. Mittal[edit]

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

Doesn't qualify WP:Academic. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. In India a Vice-Chancellor is the de facto head of a university, so he meets WP:PROF#C6. Google Scholar also shows a few highly-cited (>100) papers, so there's a weak case for WP:PROF#C1. It would be nice if we could find sources that say something beyond these bare facts, though. – Joe (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I think we shouldn't assume that vice-chancelor is the de-facto head of this university unless we have evidence that this holds true for everyone. About Google Scholar, the profile you have given seems to be a different person that the person in question. The Google scholar profile person belongs to BITS (A highly reputed engineering college in India). While the subject of this page is associated with different universities. May please double check if they are same people. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It does. See the article I linked, A "vice-chancellor" (commonly called a "VC") serves as the chief executive of a university in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Kenya, other Commonwealth countries, and some universities in Hong Kong. That is what Vice-Chancellor means in these university systems. You're right about the Google Scholar profile; struck that part, but it's still a weak keep per WP:PROF#C6 for me. It would be very strange if there wasn't significant coverage about the head of a university. – Joe (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, thanks for sharing this. I read and I agree that the article says so. However, this information at Chancellor (education) remains unsourced. But I guess we can leave that and agree on your argument. I have added his profile at university website as a source since current source is sort of a syndicated feed. So does it mean all vice-chancelors of accredited universities would be presumed notable? That would be a lot. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless Ch. Bansi Lal is considered an important school. Actual GS profile of Dr Mittal. Joe, is this university (founded in 2014) actually considered a major institution, per the language in C6? From what I've seen through a quick search it doesn't appear to be even close. JoelleJay (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC) EDIT: Changed to neutral. JoelleJay (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay: I don't think there's a clear consensus on what "major" means in those criteria. Personally I'd say that an accredited, degree-awarding state university is. – Joe (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe:, while that makes some sense, it doesn't really explain why "major" is used in the guideline rather than clearer language (like "state university or major private university"). Does that mean all state/provincial universities in every country are "major"? There are 416 state universities in India, although only 249 of them qualify for UGC funding under Section 12(B) of the UGC Act (whatever that means). There are also 8 Ayurveda universities among them, which I believe would require greater scrutiny of notability considerations per FRINGE. The degree of specialization of the colleges (e.g. Gujarat University of Transplantation Sciences) also does seem quite a bit different from what a "state university" is in North America. I'd be curious to see the discussion that led to the wording in C6. JoelleJay (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd have go digging pretty deep in the archives to find that! But I suspect part of the answer is that higher education systems vary so widely from country to country, so it's hard to find specific wording that fits everywhere (the current guideline is already quite US-centric). – Joe (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Joe Roe's thinking. On top of that I've found a fair amount of mentions of him while searching. Keep in mind I'm not saying these provide notability, but if I can dig these up it leads me to believe that if I read Hindi I could find enough to show notability. This combined with Joe's explanation is why I'm at where I'm at. [39][40][41][42] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 14 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 Albania-United States relations. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Albania, Washington, D.C.[edit]

Embassy of Albania, Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was the subject of a previous AfD in 2019 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, Cairo) the result was procedural keep as participants clearly think the mass nomination was inappropriate and wanted the different embassies to be considered individually. The article is solely reliant on primary sources and it should be noted that embassies are not inherently notable. Fails WP:NBUILDING / WP:NORG / WP:GEOFEAT. Dan arndt (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:49, 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 merge to Angola–United States relations. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Angola, Washington, D.C.[edit]

Embassy of Angola, Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was the subject of a previous AfD in 2019 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, Cairo) the result was procedural keep as participants clearly think the mass nomination was inappropriate and wanted the different embassies to be considered individually. The article is solely reliant on primary sources and it should be noted that embassies are not inherently notable. Fails WP:NBUILDING / WP:NORG / WP:GEOFEAT. Dan arndt (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per nom. Reywas92Talk 00:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:49, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siavash B. Arani[edit]

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that this doctor, while successful, passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:09, 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 redirect to Embrun, Ontario#Education. Title to be vacated and replaced with disambiguation page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Public School[edit]

Cambridge Public 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)

Rename and redirect A school that relies on a single primary source. No RS found. Fails WP:NSCHOOL Vikram Vincent 12:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - small, non-notable elementary school. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. AdoTang (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Embrun,_Ontario#Education: I think it is gooder.--by Alcremie (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I wouldn't support a redirect of this name because it is very generic and I personally know several schools in different parts of the world which have the exact same name. However, if we rename the page, a redirect might be fine, like "Cambridge Public School, Embrun, Ontario" redirecting to "Embrun,_Ontario#Education". Vikram Vincent 06:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clearly non-notable elementary school. Which isn't really that suppressing considering elementary schools rarely are. I'm not sure what there is to say about outside of that. Except, on the redirect thing, I'd be fine with that myself. As long as the name is changed per Vikram Vincent. Since it's rather generic as it currently is. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Redirect: First change to "Cambridge Public School, Embrun, Ontario", then redirect to "Embrun,_Ontario#Education", per Vikram Vincent and Adamant1. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:12, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moza Saeed Al Otaiba[edit]

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

There is no substantive coverage of this person in English-language reliable sources. I'm unable to verify coverage in other languages, but there is nothing from those sources used as citations on this page currently. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The conglomerate she's a CEO of doesn't have an article, and it looks like she's just a run-of-the-mill UAE CEO. AdoTang (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She exists and has a career, but nothing here rises to the level of meeting GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 16:07, 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 speedy delete d Eddie891 Talk Work 12:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Bilal (model)[edit]

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

Bio of a fashion model who rcvd no SIGCOV in rs and fails GNG. The creator is likely to have a COI. Nitish shetty (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nitish shetty (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the author has just recreated this in the mainspace after GPL93 draftified it to Draft:Bilal Muhammed; I think the draft should be deleted if the page is and the creator warned that repeated recreation will lead to a block. — Bilorv (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per WP:A7 & WP:G11. The last reference doesn't even mention the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:36, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talal Al-Ajami[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL as neither the Kuwaiti league nor the Saudi third tier are listed at WP:FPL. I did search National Football Teams to see if he has any caps for Kuwait but couldn't find anything there.

Searches in Arabic do yield some coverage but nothing that appears to be significant. No indication of passing WP:GNG from looking at his Arabic Wikipedia article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Article belongs to a professional football player who played in the Kuwaiti Premier League and a link was included from the website Of Soccerway proving his participation [1] Lilianasri (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBAL CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per the nominator as I looked at the sources for this player and despite sources being available, the struggle to possibly pass WP:GNG is there. HawkAussie (talk) 12:34, 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fayez Al-Dhefiery[edit]

Fayez Al-Dhefiery (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 the Kuwaiti league nor the Saudi 4th tier are listed at WP:FPL so does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL according to Kooora and Soccerway, both linked in the article.

Arabic searches are only coming back with articles about someone completely unrelated. No football coverage coming up so I can't see that there is evidence of a WP:GNG pass. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:17, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel So[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Samuel So (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 User:Finngall has shown last year, there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject of this autobiography. Roy17 (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Roy17 (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my earlier nomination. Sources added since the last discussion are not enough to meet WP:GNG. --Finngall talk 17:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is an option if you agree somebody who produced notable films doesn't means he/she is notable. Singlebird (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Singlebird: A subject is not "notable by association". An author may be notable by Wikipedia standards, but that does not mean each individual book by them is notable. A band may be notable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the individual members are. Some of So's films may have passed our notability standards, but what we need is multiple reliable and independent sources covering him. Not his films, him, as an individual. The provided sources are the HKMDB, which provides only a bare list of his films, IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source because it can be edited by anyone without attribution, an Amazon link to a graphic novel he wrote, and a bunch of links which do not mention him at all. One would think that a director of notable films would have more verifiable information available about him out there somewhere, but without that verifiability from reliable sources there is literally nothing upon which we base a proper encyclopedia article on him. The previous AfD did not establish him as notable, it was effectively dismissed due to lack of participation over several weeks, and the editor who closed it explicitly stated that the result should not be prejudicial against a new nomination at any time. If better sources can be found, that's great--we can analyze those and I might change my opinion based on the new information. But the article as it stands at this writing does not meet our standards. --Finngall talk 02:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Finngall: Hong Kong do have a official film search engine developed by Hong Kong Film Archive which support film director, screenwriter and actor/attress searching (not for the entire crew search), but it is Chinese based, use English for searching may not receive a fully search result. And the link of the search result page is hidden which is not able to copy and paste as wiki source. But you can always go there to double check information if you have doubts about HKMDB. For example every single film written by Samuel So can be find in the above Hong Kong Film Archive search engine: https://mcms.lcsd.gov.hk/Search/hkFilm/enquire!?&request_locale=zh_HK BTW, in my opinion, HKMDB is reliable. I believe informations inside are manage by administrator. May be not as professional as wiki, but they do provide high quality information for years. Singlebird (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Singlebird: Fair enough, but even if we assume that these are valid, that still only adds up to "He exists and he made films". Are there news articles about him, in any language? --Finngall talk 15:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Finngall: Well, if "news articles" is the only way to measure notability (but not notable works), l agree to delete his page. Singlebird (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creative professionals does matter: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative_professionals) Samuel So (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, authors, filmmakers and other creative professionals are likely to be notable. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Singlebird (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuel So: I'm not arguing that Mr. So doesn't meet the WP:CREATIVE criterion cited here. But meeting this criterion means nothing if there are not sufficient reliably-sourced references. Cases in point: I was recently involved in another discussion regarding an article on a venture capital firm. They had lots of money, they provided funding for multiple notable companies with articles of their own, but the available sources only ever mentioned them in passing in articles whose focus on these other companies--there weren't any sources focusing on the company itself, so while you would have thought they ought to have an article, we didn't really have any material upon which to base that article, so there was really no other option but to delete. Another was a biography on a person who was famous enough within his field that it came as a surprise that there weren't good sources available, but again, no reliable sources, no article. Until he died, and the resulting obituaries provided ample sourcing for the article to be recreated. We've come up with a dizzying array of criteria for who and what merits an article here, but in the end, it all comes down to verifiability, and without that, there's nothing. --Finngall talk 16:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Finngall: I agree this autobiography may failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Special_cases). But if we look inside the Notability (people) page in Chinese Wikipedia (as Samuel So is a Hong Kong creative professional), qualified film director (導演), screenwriter (編劇) or writer (作家) does meet the notability standard, character collection standard (人物收錄條件) and the independent page collection standard (獨立條目的收錄標準) at the same time. "Sufficient reliably-sourced reference" is not a must. Samuel So (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuel So: Each Wikipedia sets its own rules and standards, therefore the existence of an article on one language's Wikipedia does not in itself justify the existence of a corresponding Wikipedia article in another language. --Finngall talk 21:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Finngall: Chinese Wikipedia focus on measuring if a person is a qualified writer or screenwriter with six criteria in total (you may not find anything like this in English Wikipedia).... this make perfect sense, but I won't go further if you don't want me to do so. Samuel So (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Finngall:Following these guidelines will get the same results as those who follow the Chinese Wikipedia guidelines, even though each Wikipedia has its own rules and standards. Please consider! Singlebird (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable enough to meet either WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. He has not created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, nor has he originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Sun8908 Talk 10:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sun8908: In WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, we may always argue if a person is notable enough or not, but not for creative professionals in WP:Creative. In WP:Creative, we may argue if a person is a professional authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, or other creative professional, instead of judging if a creative professional is notable enough, as people are likely to be notable if they meet the standard of creative professional (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria). Singlebird (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Singlebird: I think you misunderstood the policy. WP:CREATIVE doesn't state that all professional authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, or other creative professional can have their Wikipedia article. Instead, they can be considered to be notable if they meet one of the four criteria. Currently, there is no indication that the subject, Samuel So, has met the criteria. Sun8908 Talk 06:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sun8908: I cannot agree with you and I have no further comment. Thank you! Singlebird (talk) 08:02, 8 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 Altamonte Springs, Florida with no prejudice to it being merged if proper sourcing is found. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Altamonte Springs, Florida[edit]

List of mayors of Altamonte Springs, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of not-notable local politicians. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No rationale given for AfD nomination. Djflem (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or merge with Altamonte Springs, Florida. The historical mayors of a city of 40,000 isn't notable enough for its own article, but I guess the list could go in the article. Collapsible table? AdoTang (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of any differences of opinion on whether the notability of the individual people in the list is a valid argument for deletion of the list or not, what a list of people definitely still needs to be is properly referenced so that the information can be properly verified as accurate. But there are no sources here at all, the fact that there are large gaps in the information (some periods where no mayor is listed at all, and some mayors who are missing one or both of their start and end dates) demonstrates that the person who created this didn't actually use very solid sourcing in the first place since any genuinely worthy or reliable source would have filled in said gaps, and keeping a completely unsourced list of almost entirely non-notable people is not part of our mandate. Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Altamonte Springs, Florida. A list of mayors could stand on its own if the list was complete and verifiable. This looks to be in a draft state and AFD is not clean up. – The Grid (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no reason to have a list of a bunch of almost all completely non-notable people who lead a not super significant place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Altamonte Springs, Florida - the list isn't improper to have if properly sourced, but it's not notable enough for its own article. (I am assuming this will be sourced if merged, we should not merge an unsourced table, so read my !vote as "should not be a stand-alone article, keep content if possible.") SportingFlyer T·C 10:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to Altamonte Springs, Florida per the merge, redirect and delete votes above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Altamonte Springs, Florida for the reasons others have suggested. We don't need a standalone article for this and the target for the merge is not overly long. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:40, 14 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 12:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Reina[edit]

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

Assistant professor. Awards seem mostly early career, and citations don't seem to be sufficient to meet WP:NPROF. WP:TOOSOON? Also not convinced there is enough material to pass WP:GNG. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are those awards important enough to bring about notability? The G-scholar citation rating does not match requirement for NPROF. Vikram Vincent 10:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looking at "Major Honors and Awards" from https://creina4.wixsite.com/celiareinaresearch/cv : 5 look like very early career awards, 2 are postdoc fellowships, and one is a named Assistant Professor chair (but not a full professor). It's only the latter I'm unsure about - the others don't really contribute notability, but show potential of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pasting here for wider consideration:
  • California Institute of Technology - Rolf D. Buhler Memorial Award, for "exemplary academic performance,"2007
  • California Institute of Technology - Charles D. Babcock Award, "for achievements in teaching that have made a significant contribution to the Aeronautics program," 2008
  • University of Bonn - HCM Postdoctoral Fellowship, 2010
  • ALawrence Livermore National Laboratory - Lawrence Postdoctoral Fellowship, 2010 ::*California Institute of Technology - William F. Ballhaus Prize, "for an outstanding doctoral dissertation in Aeronautics," 2011
  • University of Pennsylvania - William K. Gemmill Term Assistant Professor (endowed-chair), 2014
  • ASME - Eshelby Mechanics Award for Young Faculty,2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentvikram (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. It's a solid start, but assistant professors rarely meet WP:NPROF C1, and it certainly looks WP:TOOSOON in this case. I don't see any other evidence of notability. Comment that "term" as part of a named position at the assistant professor level often indicates a postdoc; that doesn't appear to be the case here, as Penn appears to put "term" as part of the name of also their senior named chairs. But in any case, named positions below full professor are explicitly excluded (cannot "be applied reliably") from WP:NPROF C5. And the early career and student awards do not contribute to notability, as Kj cheetham has already pointed out. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. fails WP:NPROF and is clearly TOOSOON. awards for young faculty and training awards do not confer notability, her GS has less than 300 citations which is low even for a low-ish citation field like hers (engineering/physics) and the article is clearly promotional: "She even landed a second Postdoc position" -- doing a second postdoc is not necessarily a mark of achievement. --hroest 14:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save. I created the article because women need more representation in the field of science and engineering on Wikipedia, and her accomplishments seem notable for a woman. Shari Garland (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shari Garland this is a very worthwhile goal that I full support, however the appropriate way to go about this is to create articles about women who are actually notable and not keep articles about non-notable subjects just because they happen to be women. --hroest 21:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • no, this is not a worthwhi.e goal. It is a violation of the purposes of Wikipedia and disruptive. Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. It does not exist to create coverage of people, but to follow coverage that exists. This person clearly and completely fails academic notability guidelines and creating an article on her was disruptive to the purposes of Wikipedia. We need to stop encouraging people who go around creating articles on non-notable people and to start actually standing up for people following the inclusion criteira, the no original research, and other guidelines as written.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnpacklambert you seem to have a very confrontational style and I disagree with you: having better representation of women and minorities is a worthwhile goal, however achieving that goal by lowering standards is not a worthwhile means to achieve that goal. Calling this disruptive and a violation of Wikipedias purpose is not helpful. Instead we should be writing more articles about women and minorities who are actually notable. Creating an article about her was *not* with the intent to disrupt but an honest effort to better represent women in Wikipedia, even though it may have been misguided. Nobody is encouraging people to go around and create articles for non-notable people, no one here at least. Finally the WP:NPROF are guidelines and can be WP:IGNOREd.--hroest 13:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:TOOSOON, does not pass WP:PROF. There are large numbers of women in academia whose accomplishments are notable, full stop, rather than merely seeming notable "for a woman", and who are not yet represented by articles here (for instance, hundreds of them, most or all passing WP:PROF, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships). Fixing the gender gap does not require lowering our standards and stooping to tokenism. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is TOOSOON. I looked at the Scopus citation metrics of Dr. Reina and all 15 of her coauthors*, plus all 99 of her two most frequent collaborators' coauthors* (*with ≥5 papers).
Total citations: average: 2469, median: 625, Reina: 196.
Total papers: avg: 72, med: 42, R: 20.
h-index: avg: 18, med: 13, R: 8.
Top 5 highest citations: 1st: avg: 302, med: 82, R: 44. 2nd: avg: 230, med: 56, R: 38. 3rd: avg: 128, med: 45, R: 18. 4th: avg: 98, med: 34, R: 14. 5th: avg: 82, med: 31, R: 11.
Shari Garland, please also see my user page for a list of STEM women who are more likely to pass NPROF -- all of them were discovered while looking through coauthors of other AfD subjects. Among Reina's extended coauthors are Irene Beyerlein (citations: 16478; h-index: 70; 5 highest citations: 383, 358, 319, 277, 275), Jane P Chang (c: 5263; h: 42; top: 339, 227, 211, 132, 130), and Sarah H Tolbert (c: 18246; h: 59; top: 2211, 1840, 808, 642, 609), who all seem to be exceptional in MSE but do not have wikipedia articles. JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this junk article. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to right wrongs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnpacklambert, this is not a "junk" article, it is an earnest effort by a newer editor who has been doing excellent work in the five months they have been here. It is not necessary nor is it kind to describe the article in condescending terms. The creation of this article was not a disruptive act. Deletion discussions are supposed focus on guidelines and policy. Netherzone (talk) 21:52, 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 12:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Hill (arts director)[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 18 closed with a consensus to overturn a G11 speedy deletion and send to AFD. I am therefore opening this AFD with a neutral view. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I still think WP:G11 was an appropriate deletion concern even after the cleanup, but since that discussion was overturned, he also fails WP:GNG after a BEFORE search - can't find any good secondary qualifying coverage in a search. SportingFlyer T·C 14:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did searches for him with the word "director" and "theatre", and and I didn't see anything of encyclopedic importance. He works in the arts, at least sometimes, but he's not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing here is even remotely close to indicating notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject does not meet GNG or WP:CREATIVE. The article mostly focuses on ArtReach anyway. --Kbabej (talk) 16:16, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rhapsody of Realities[edit]

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

Deleted back in 2015 for being promotional, this still feels WP:PROMOTIONAL! I don't see WP:GNG met and was changed to a redirect recently only to be changed back. AfD seemed to be the next course of action. Govvy (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: G11 Case, promotional, book itself has no independent coverage CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. AdoTang (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopaedic (is that a word?) promo piece on a non-notable book, clearly fails WP:GNG / WP:NBOOK. I would have said redir to the article on the author, but no point if that's been undone already, therefore delete (and salt). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's mention of this book in articles about the church and Oyakhilome, but I don't see where there's really a lot of coverage for the book itself. Not to where it'd comfortably pass NBOOK, in any case. I'd recommend a selective merge into either the author or church's article, however the promotional prose would need to be cleaned up. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:38, 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 redirect to Cheshire County Cricket Club. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Powell (cricketer, born 1982)[edit]

James Powell (cricketer, born 1982) (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) 07:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cheshire County Cricket Club Has played 1 List-A match, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Searching was difficult due to his common name so sources may exists offline or locally. 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. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one source is never enough to pass GNG, and in this case the source is a directory type source that does not even add towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails GNG. Do not redirect as the subject is not even notable enough to merit a mention in Cheshire County Cricket Club. If there was a list of all players that had ever played for that club he would be included on it, but a redirect from such a cumbersome title as this would not be useful.--Pontificalibus 12:46, 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 redirect to List of Devon County Cricket Club List A players. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Traylor[edit]

David Traylor (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) 07:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Devon County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match but I couldn't find any significant coverage. A reasonably significant minor counties career though may mean sources exist offline or locally. 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. This is another that probably should have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Devon County Cricket Club List A players. Insufficient significant coverage – very few non-trivial mentions in routine local cricket and football reports (all in the Herald Express), and the usual wide-ranging scorecard databases – so fails WP:GNG. This trumps the trivial pass/arguable fail of the weak NCRIC. Redirect is an accepted ATD. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very clearly fails one event notability. There is no indication that Traylor is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 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. Sandstein 20:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis-Martin Soucy[edit]

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

I can't tell if this is a hoax / April Fool's joke, or just a puffed-up self-promo/vanity piece, but it's effectively unreferenced, and riddled with factual errors and falsehoods. A search finds nothing even approaching RS sigcov, hence this fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO if nothing else. I would have requested speedy, but there is so much content that I didn't think it would get through, so here we are. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reason given by DoubleGlazing. Athel cb (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't consider this deleteable on sight, but some of it is highly suspect. The "Lord of Glencoe" scam made the newspapers in Scotland back in 2012. A "laird" is not a Lord, and the GBP30 that one paid does not even truly make one a laird at all. And I cannot find any evidence that the Avignon Film Festival even gave out awards, let alone to whom. The article's creator and sole content contributor here is almost a single-purpose account both here and on the French Wikipedia, and the fr: article was created by Lewismartinsoucy (talk · contribs) there. I couldn't find any biographical sources for verifying or rectifying this, and the article cites none. This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from actually having to have any reliable sources, and the fact that such sources can't even be located on an outside search raises the definite possibility that at least some of this is outright hoaxery. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 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 12:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Angier[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Having a school named after him is not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly not notable. Athel cb (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that the sources aren't online doesn't mean that there are no sources. He was way before online and there are probably some type of news about him such as the coverage in The Crimson I found. Noah 💬 12:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Crimson is hardly a neutral source, seeing as he was a Harvard alumnus. Being one of the many casualties of World War I doesn't amount to notability, unless he accomplished something that is not indicated in his article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theoretically that argument could be made about thousands of absolutely non-notable people. We are not obligated to scour every library in the United States for every print copy of newspapers to have sufficient cause to believe a subject isn't notable. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm seeing a GNG fail problem. Everything about him source wise is either tied to his name being on a school or his alma mater such as The Crimson, Harvard alumni publications, a book by Harvard about its alumni who fought in WWI...which simply aren't independent. Please note that SOLDIER has hardly any standing anymore and try to avoid using it in deletion discussions. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SOLDIER has no standing anymore, but this fails GNG, the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources requirement of GNG just isn't met. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per comments above. Zawed (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete getting the distinguished service cross is not a sign of notability. Nor is having an elementary school named after you.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 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 12:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Potdar[edit]

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

lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Advertisement. Fails WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. I have also visited all the continents and taken photographs, but that's not enough for an article, or even worth mentioning in an article. Athel cb (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whilst the Smart Photography references might initially suggest some notability/expertise, they do not deal with him in any detail, and the magazine is not deemed notable enough for a WP article. The other references do not appear to confer notability. Eldumpo (talk) 17:45, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. D. Parashar[edit]

M. D. Parashar (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 indication of notability. Lack of reliable references with significant coverage. fails WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable individual. Unable to verify the claim about the National Photography Award. Also, WP:COPYVIO [43]. -KH-1 (talk) 13:08, 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 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 09:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunjoy Monga[edit]

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

lack of reliable references that is independent of the subject. fails GNG. WP:SIGCOV GermanKity (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 08:21, 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 Redirect. (non-admin closure) GoneIn60 (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tree Topper[edit]

Tree Topper (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 meet WP:N. This is one of 11 coasters designed by William Cobb, and the coaster is already listed at that article with the primary RCDB cited reference. There's no reason for Wikipedia to list its specs, which are insignificant. GoneIn60 (talk) 05:16, 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. Sandstein 20:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Branson Coaster[edit]

The Branson Coaster (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 meet WP:N. This is one of hundreds of similar "mountain coasters" in various countries. GoneIn60 (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. GoneIn60 (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uninteresting and not notable. Athel cb (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two sentences with a single unreliable source. Doesn't even give a location. AdoTang (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – And I forgot to mention that I typically look for a way to redirect before going to AfD, but unfortunately there doesn't appear to even be a related park or manufacturer article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:53, 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 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 09:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Learning Environments[edit]

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

Article about an organization, not properly referenced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, companies and organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically verifiable that they exist -- they need to have reliable source coverage about the organization in media in order to establish their significance. But the footnotes (and the excessive linkfarm of external links) here are all primary sources, such as its own self-published website the self-published websites of other directly affiliated organizations, with no evidence of any reliable or notability-supporting media coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 14 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, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions: 2020-11 Prakash Nair ✓ keep
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:06, 23 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) 04:29, 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. Sandstein 20:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mort's Palisades Deli[edit]

Mort's Palisades Deli (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 place gets lots of mentions, due to its use on Curb Your Enthusiasm, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 14:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:15, 16 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 14:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully this attracts more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has a few mentions in Los Angeles magazine in 1998 and 2000 (or thereabouts) in a quickie G search, seems to pass the smell test. Lots of book mentions also. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 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 redirect to Matt Gaetz#Alleged sexual relationship with minor. Numerically, opinions are roughly evenly split between delete, merge and keep. There are sensible arguments for all three outcomes, but in the end it is a matter of our collective editorial judgment to what extent we want to cover these allegations; as such I cannot determine on my own whose arguments are stronger. I can, however, determine that rough consensus is against deleting this article but also against keeping it as a separate article at this time. This makes "merge" the most consensual outcome of this discussion.

It has been noted that the content of this article is not more that what there is already about this topic in the main article Matt Gaetz, which also indicates that most people think that there does not seem to be very much content for a subarticle at the moment. Consequently, given that most of the merger seems to have been already done, I think it best reflects this discussion and is best in terms of article quality to simply redirect the title, allowing editors to merge whatever they think is useful from the history. This does not preclude the recreation of a spinoff article per WP:SS if our coverage of the matter grows substantially, but I advise discussing this on the talk page first to avoid a re-run of this discussion. Sandstein 19:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations[edit]

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

Prod declined, redirect to his main page declined. The reporting on this is all less than what, 12 hours old? I have yet to see an actual story that says he was charged. All the reporting is about the fact that someone found out he was being investigated. Not enough for our BLP rules. Merging all this to the main article might be OK as he has been responding to the claims in the media. But keeping an article with the title format "firstname lastname child sex scandal" when the investigation has not been confirmed and charges have not been laid? --- Possibly (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: this is being discussed at WP:AN#Matt Gaetz. I moved the article to Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations per BLP. Fences&Windows 01:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete Far WP:TOOSOON. This is a developing story. It may well end up being a major news story that deserves a separate article, but we're not there yet and things could go the other way as time goes on.LM2000 (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – WP:TOOSOON, doesn't deserve anything more than a paragraph at Matt Gaetz at this point. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's adequately confirmed it may deserve a mention at Matt Gaetz, but it's not yet at that point. As a separate page, no. Athel cb (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sensational breaking news story, essentially based on the reporting of one source. Grossly premature to call this a "scandal." It is early to even give this a mention in the Matt Gaetz article, due to BLP and undue weight concerns. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge keep, not delete. It's trivially easy to obey WP:BLP by limiting ourselves to reporting the coverage in WP:RS media. As for now, WP:TOOSOON certainly does apply, but this topic can be added to the Matt Gaetz page for now, with the option to fork back out into its own article when that section is more fully fleshed-out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm really uncomfortable with this. It says in the article that no charges have been brought, yet the article name uses the phrase "child sex scandal" without any qualifiers, which could well give the impression that not only charges have been brought but they've also been proven. I know WP:BLPPUBLIC sort of allows this, but while the article may be within the letter of that guideline, I don't think it is within its spirit. If it were my call, I'd say speedily delete this as wholly negative BLP that's also just WP:TOOSOON. But given that the story is merely a day or two old, I guess I could live with it being draftified for a while, pending further developments, assuming that's okay legally etc. (And just to say, I've never heard of this chap, I don't even know which party he represents, so my comment is entirely unbiased in that respect.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per what literally everyone else said. Maybe send some info to Matt Gaetz a day or so later, or something. AdoTang (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergeto the main page for reasons stated above.JTZegersSpeak
    Aura     15:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (partial) to Matt Gaetz. Widely covered in reliable media: he himself has acknowledged. Djflem (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those voting merge, a note that this material has now been covered in the main article here. --- Possibly (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The topic of this article is not a random piece of gossip that can simply be dismissed by claiming it is a "hit job," it is an investigation being conducted by the US Department of Justice into whether a US congressman has committed the sex trafficking of a minor. Coverage in this article (as in the press, where it is a major story) balances both the serious allegations and the denials by the alleged sexual predator. The investigation which this article is about is very much a real and notable subject and therefore the article is completely appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UrielAcosta (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and speedy close this. Yet again again again, Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot with stupid deletion tags, on another big and somewhat complex story that people are looking up and wanting to learn about. It's as if someone dreamed up the most evil strategy for giving a bad image of Wikipedia, to be widely spread whenever Wikipedia is most useful / most visited. Instead, there oughta be some sign put on the page "ANOTHER GREAT BREAKING STORY EXPLAINED SIMPLY AND ACCURATELY AND WELL BY wIKIPEDIA, YOUR FRIEND. BE SURE TO REVISIT THIS PAGE AS MORE FACTS BECOME AVAILABLE. WE ARE PROUD OF WHAT WE DO. CONSIDER DONATING $1,000,000 TODAY." But no, our message is "We are stupid and divided!". --Doncram (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are not Wikinews. This is just a handful of allegations at the moment. No charges have been filed, and we aren't exactly sure where the investigation is going, though I'm sure Twitter is loosing it. TOOSOON, we'll see if this develops into anything, then we can have our article. At the moment, a small paragraph on the Gaetz page will suffice. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Premature WP:CONTENTFORK that clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS. Problematic title as well. KidAd • SPEAK 06:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article does not violate any of the four points in WP:NOTNEWS. The article is not OR, it is not written as a news report, it's not a who's who, and it is not celebrity gossip or a diary. However, it is valid to suggest that at this time, this is a premature fork. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Matt Gaetz article. This page is simply not large enough to justify a separate article.★Trekker (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. Though I think the content should be saved for possible merging into Matt Gaetz or to even be released as its own page in the future, we don't know enough about the story, the validity of the claim, or the motive of the claim to merit its own article. I agree with DoubleGrazing that the title and spirit of the article are quite harsh for something that hasn't even been officially proven yet, upon looking at the most recent developments to the story today I would argue there is not enough information for its own page. Possibly also makes a good point that there is already a section for this topic on Matt Gaetz's page. Yy958 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Matt Gaetz: per WP:TOOSOON. A section in the main article is suffice for now. Curbon7 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is more than enough reporting from a vast number of reputable sources to qualify this for its own article. All it needs is a WP:CET, and then we should get to fleshing out this article rather than scrapping it. (Everyone here citing WP:TOOSOON should maybe find an actual Wikipedia policy that backs their argument rather than an essay Internetronic (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of the Delete votes cite WP:TOOSOON. It's debateable whether WP:TOOSOON itself is a valid reason for deletion given that it is an essay and not a policy. Be that as it may, WP:TOOSOON states, "For an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources." By that standard, the article is *NOT* WP:TOOSOON. Scanlyze (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This scandal is getting worse and worse by the day. If deleted prematurely, it's likely to need being added again later. For now, I suggest keeping it. Art Smart Chart/Heart 10:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at the very least change title. It's not very NPOV to have an article title referring to a girl who would be old enough to legally have sex with a thirtysomething in 39 states that aren't Florida as a "child". Khemehekis (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Doncram Kiltpin (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Matt Gaetz article. Not much is even known about this at this time so it would be appropriate to merge to his main article until more info comes out. Article is not NPOV as well because age 17 is or is above the age of consent for many states. Minor and child differ. Chloe0303 (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: the article is premature, particularly with respect to its title. soibangla (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above by User:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, this is not a speedy vote. Internetronic (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don’t know what the precise protocol is here, but this article is exceedingly problematic and should be promptly nuked at the earliest opportunity. soibangla (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • for a speedy deletion, you need to specify the speedy criterion as per WP:CSD. (Actually speedies aren't even supposed to be done in AfD.) If you instead feel it is problematic (e.g. you think it's a WP:BLP violation?), you give the explanation why you think so. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, easily passes the notability criteria. Pointless nomination. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chessrat: Saying it's pointless is kind of pointless, seeing as more than 50% want to delete and the outcome is very much in contention. It's your basic relevant discussion.--- Possibly (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a situation where an article about a rapidly-developing story gets AfD-ed when there's less coverage of it, and as more information comes in it's obvious that an article is needed. Note that most of the delete votes were from a few days ago, and most votes now are to keep. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This story is evolving slowly but surely, and there's no doubt that there'll be further developments as we move along. At best, this could require a rename if more people are dragged into this scandal. Love of Corey (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is definitely WP:TOOSOON. Right now this is an unnecessary WP:NEGATIVESPIN. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Article has been moved to Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations by User:Fences and windows with summary Boldly moving per BLP. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 01:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 3. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Scanlyze. My only concern was the article title, but that's already been addressed. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is the only thing I’ll say because I tried commenting then the page was deleted. I tried again and I got edit conflicted twice. Too soon to know where this story will go or if it is even substantiated. Trillfendi (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has significant press coverage/sources and the problematic title was changed.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an WP:UNDUE spinout of a BLP subject that is far too soon. The parent article itself is only 5500 words right now, and it absolutely could be trimmed further; there's no basis for needing a spinout article (that as pointed out essentially makes assertions of criminal conduct in the very framing). There's no reason that this article should exist as a separate topic. Suppositions that it could "blow up" or involve tons of people that require a separate article are entirely jumping the gun; we judge suitability for merging or deleting by the sources we have now, not on the idea that maybe something will happen later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 01:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Majority of the article is about the extortion attempt. This is an article engaging in sensationalism as very few facts are available to actually cite about the allegations. Instead, you can already see the WP:Coatrack to tie this to Q, Roger Stone and Human Sex Trafficking. Slywriter (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I struck out "with the title format "firstname lastname child sex scandal"" from the AfD nomination as the article title has been changed.--- Possibly (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, do not delete - Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DELAY. The allegations are simply too recent. We can probably summarize everything in about 2 paragraphs in the main Gaetz article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its gonna become a major devolping story, lets kep it so its ready Phillypaboy123 (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2021 (EST)
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 04:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep per WP:N and ample, substantive coverage of a public figure. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has so much mainstream media coverage (including from major newspapers in other countries that one might hope are sufficiently farther removed to provide a less-politicized point of view) that it's obviously notable by now and it would overwhelm the main Gaetz article if we didn't keep it separate. It's an unstable and fraught situation but that's only an argument for why it can't be a Good Article now, not an argument for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Matt Gaetz - this is clearly a notable incident with reliable sourcing, that is not in doubt. However, I don't think there's enough coverage to warrant a discrete article (yet?). ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Scanlyze. Gazamp (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is far too premature for a standalone article on this. The article is still short and the main Matt Gaetz article has a discussion of these allegations which is more detailed than the one in this article. Nor do we have any good reason to believe that these allegations will have much lasting significance, as they haven't been confirmed, they haven't led to any charges and the person they relate to is only a congressman. I don't see anything to merge given that the main article covers this in more detail already. Hut 8.5 14:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At least for now. If charges are filed in court, then restart the article. Too much sheer speculation at the moment. Personally, I think he looks like a putz, but he might be an innocent putz. 104.169.24.168 (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Keep: because by the time this is closed it will meet notability requirements. versacespacetalk to me 15:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Per WP:SNOW, The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes. Nothing about this page's notability is "likely" or "quite likely." KidAd • SPEAK 16:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Matt Gaetz#Alleged sexual relationship with minor, where it is already covered in sufficient detail. Too soon to spin out. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Matt Gaetz, at least unless there is an indictment and trial. Liz Read! Talk! 17:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete At present it's a clear BLP/NCRIME violation, and at any rate if the allegations are borne out, it is just part of his biography and will cease being just allegations. Mangoe (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Blindingly, Obviously. 1, the topic is seeing sustained, widespread coverage in both national and international sources. 2, as long as the article is focused on the allegations of a crime and not stating that the subject actually committed a crime (until he is indicted, of course). 3, WP:BLPCRIME is not applicable, as the subject is a public figure. If there are concerns about improper language used in the article such as "child s**" or "s** trafficking", than those can be handled by reverting to err on side of caution, and discussing. Finally, a merger is not appropriate given the scope of what has been reported so far. It would be undue to include this much info in the bio. Zaathras (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It's far too early for this. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Matt Gaetz. While this is certainly notable, per WP:SIZERULE the length of this and the main article do not justify a split at this time. Username6892 00:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge This very obviously shouldn't be its own article. Whoever closes this discussion should consider the Delete votes to be the same as Merge, as this content will be covered in Matt Gaetz regardless. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete - At least half the verbiage is already in the parent article. There may be a time when a stand alone article is justified, but it isn't today. Seems like an unnecessary fork for what will easily fit in the main article, where some of this is going to be anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge&redirect, do not delete. A completely different title may be appropriate as a substantial portion of the article of about David McGee allegedly extorting Gaetz for $25M. "Gaetz and McGee investigation and allegations", not exactly that but it's hard to come up with a clear title that covers both. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider rename to Matt Gaetz scandals given the sprawling nature of the scandal which some sources suggest extends beyond sexual misconduct. Neutralitytalk 03:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this, especially due to the fake ID aspects just starting to come out.
    https://www.rawstory.com/matt-gaetz-2651324756/
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-text-messages-led-the-feds-to-matt-gaetz Internetronic (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neutrality: Maybe "Matt Gaetz misconduct investigation". It seems the word "scandal" is rarely if ever used in a title together with a name. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is Jack Abramoff scandals. Neutralitytalk 16:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, Larry Craig scandal, Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal, John Ensign scandal, Mark Foley scandal, Petraeus scandal... 162.208.168.92 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well sourced and this topic continues to circulate in the media. As per above, the title is not inclusive as there appear to be several distinct controversies surrounding this person including an extortion scandal, sexual solicitation scandal, and sexual conquest scandal related to his previous legislative positions, and FBI and DOJ investigations. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Matt Gaetz. It's part and parcel of his career, not a separate, long-running story. It's better handled as part of the main article. no matter what happens. →StaniStani 12:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
just out of curiosity, what if the scandal section of the Matt Gaetz article ends up growing until it's 90% of the article? That would still be okay and not a case of WP:UNDUE, would it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your hypotheticals have no bearing on the issue at hand and your comments thus far haven't advanced the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^ WP:OTHERSTUFF KidAd • SPEAK 22:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. That's if my argument was solely based on the other article existing, which it is not. That sentence was merely another way of saying that the story has received lots of coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your "argument" is that this controversy has gotten as much coverage as another controversy which has an article. That's WP:OTHERSTUFF. KidAd • SPEAK 00:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't just whenever someone mentions another article. Davey was very clearly comparing the coverage of the two incidents, which is the metric we use to determine notability.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged Elli (talk | contribs) 22:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with a redirect - I don't really see the rationale for deletion. It's a developing story receiving substantial coverage in secondary sources. The only question is where we should cover it (here or on Matt Gaetz), not whether or not the content should remain on the encyclopedia full stop. This should have been listed as a merge discussion on the talk page, not brought to AfD.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, leaning towards Keep. I think this is actually very similar to the Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign AfD. Initially yes it was WP:TOOSOON but over time it developed much more into a complete article. As the investigation pans out, I am certain there will be more information which will make this a more complete article, but we just need to be patient and find out how much merit these claims have. Right now, I think this article is in that sweet spot of being too short for its own article, but too long to merge with Gaetz's article. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main article currently contains more text on the "scandal" (18 sources/ 659 words/ 4250 characters) than this standalone article (16 sources/ 520 words/ 3350 characters) does.--- Possibly (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For now. We got tons of coverage but most of it are just allegations, and didn't merit its own article. Merge all of these to his own page. SunDawn (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SunDawn: Merging is not the same as deletion. And when merging, the article would typically be converted to a redirect for multiple reasons including attribution purposes. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now. There is certainly reliable source coverage here, but not enough (yet) that it couldn’t be covered in the main article. 28bytes (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepMmmm,isthattrue (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Note:SPA and this is their only edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is definitely important reliably sourced content here that we should be covering, but it is covered well on the main Gaetz article. There is no need for a content fork. If they story grows considerably, we can re-consider at that time. Bondegezou (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete anything that is reliably sourced can be covered in the article on this individual. There is no reason to have a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now Once we have specifics (and I'm pretty sure they are coming) we can have this. But for now, it seems to be mostly coverage of rumors. Well-sourced coverage of rumors, but still. Topic easily meets WP:N, but I feel there are too many BLP and, frankly, common-sense issues with having an article about rumors. Hobit (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now too small currently, can fit onto the Matt Gaetz article. --Pithon314 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say merge, but all that does is change the venue for Republican apologists to argue about its inclusion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Christen[edit]

Fritz Christen (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar". Best is a few sentence-long summary of his story here which does state that "An outstanding example of bravery and obedience to orders was given by SS Sturmann Fritz Christen", but in the end, that's one short paragraph or so, and his claim to fame rests on a WP:SINGLEEVENT. This kind of incident may merit a sentence or two in a stand-alone article about the battle or wider campaign it was a part of, but I am having trouble seeing how a stand-alone biography of him is justified. On a sidenote, WP:NSOLDIER seems depreciated, so we default to WP:NBIO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C). (If kept, needs a complete rewrite: this type of hero-worshipping hagiography is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia). —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 12:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on notability and total lack of useable content. This has some of the worst POV I have ever encountered on Wikipedia - a "stunning act of individual bravery", seriously? —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Considering comments above, I'll ping User:K.e.coffman, who, if memory serves, has done some past cleanup of Nazi-era "hagiographies" and like in the past. (I did review other articles created by the now mostly inactive author and I did not detect anything similar, so probably this is not going to lead us to some larger cleanup task, but the more eyes the better). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:BIO; insufficiently notable to be worth a redirect. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Single event. I would, however, note that I've encountered this level of dramatic writing in other entries documenting award-winning soldiers. This is not unique. Intothatdarkness 00:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable German soldier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 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. Sandstein 18:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winged sea caribou[edit]

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

The subject of this article is not notable enough for Wikipedia. It is a fictional creature that appears on a single coat of arms created by the Canadian Heraldic Authority, which has created thousands of coats of arms and hybrid creatures. This creature is not any more notable than any of the others that they have created, and has only ever been used once. It is also not an important creature in Canadian folklore or mythology, as it was created in 2007. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:05, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MO3 (rapper)[edit]

MO3 (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MO3 (rapper) previously had its own article, which was proposed for deletion for being non-notable and promotional. It was later changed to a redirect to Boosie Badazz, an entirely different person, and then to MO3, which is even less related, as it is a music file format and not a person in the first place. The article was recreated as Mo3 (rapper) and deleted almost instantly for being non-notable and promotional. The article was changed to a redirect to MO3 and the redirect was listed for deletion, with the resolution "restore and bring to AfD". So the original problem with promotion and lack of references has come back. I propose to delete this. JIP | Talk 02:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul2520: What part of WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:MUSICBIO is supported by "several songs on YouTube with 10s of millions of views"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Atlantic306's comments below. Thank you. = paul2520 💬 01:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 (only one criteria needed) with charting Billboard hits including placements on the Billboard 200,(136) Billboards rap chart (14) heatseekers (1 and 2) as confirmed in his staff written AllMusic bio here which was written before his death which shows he was notable before his death which was covered in multiple reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 01:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As he clearly passes WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG as detailed in my earlier comment the article should be kept rather than redirected, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - @Atlantic306:, I do not disagree with you about keeping the article. With that said, if the article can not be kept, it should be redirected with history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:19, 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.
  1. ^ "TALAL AL-AJAMI".
  2. ^ "FAYEZ AL-DHEFIERY".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_March_31&oldid=1017884685"