Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 14	May 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bishakh Jyoti

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

Fails badly WP:ANYBIO. Marked for not meeting notability for 2 years now. Kolma8 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meeting general notability or WP:ENT. Chirota (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. If the subject had won, could have been a different case. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough citations and does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Lesliechin1 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anwer Ali

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

No sources, very probable hoax. Globg (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Globg (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Globg (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Unsourced article...???? Kolma8 (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article has no sources, and I couldn't find any through an online search. While it's possible there are sources out there, this article has not had any since its creation. Plus, those sources would have to be enough to demonstrate notability. The Muhammad Shah article mentions him once, in an unsourced paragraph with almost the same exact wording as this article. That article says he escaped to his grand aunt Jahanara Begum, whose article has no mention of him. HoneycrispApples (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @HoneycrispApples: It is important to note that the aforementioned text was added by the same user who wrote the two articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Shah&diff=544075776&oldid=544061360 Globg (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good find. Seeing as how a single user apparently added all the information on this, it's beginning to look like a WP:HOAX to me. Some more evidence: this diff. The user in question said: "The article is created by me. He is my fore father and the information given therein is true and correct." This is already a red flag, something isn't true just because someone said so, especially when we don't have any evidence that Anwer Ali is a real person. And according to that same post, Anwer Ali was part of Kunwar Singh's court, but if we have a look at Badar Ali's article, Nazir Ali was a revenue minister under Kunwar Singh, not Anwer. That user has made some other questionable edits, like this one. An unsourced addition which essentially says that 2.5 lakh (1 lakh is 100,000 , so that's 250,000) delegates unanimously appointed Aeltemesh Rein as their president; a bit hard to believe without a source. Moving on to the Mohammad Aeltemesh article, the same user made yet another questionable edit. We can be reasonably sure that Mohammad Aeltemesh is a real person, but for the rest of his family all we have is the word of one editor. HoneycrispApples (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as explained above. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is so strange that unsourced article stands out for that long on the mainspace. Could be WP:HOAX and could be eligible for speedy deletion. This article have no claim of notability, and have no source at all. A search on the Google turns up nothing, more specific search about him being Muhammad Shah's son is going back to this particular Wikipedia article. SunDawn (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because this has the same author, is the son of the above, and similarly uncited:

To other editors: note this has a separate page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badar Ali. Geschichte (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained by HoneycrispApples. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG lacks significant coverage. Peneplavím (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 10:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesh Patel

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Only 7 matches for a cricket board side, but he's still involved in cricket at a county level as Leicestershire's 2nd XI coach. He's mentioned in this article and there seems to be more coverage in a search for Dips Patel which seems his common name, and page should probably be moved to reflect that. List of Leicestershire Cricket Board List A players a suitable WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET Dudhhr (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passes NCRICKET for his 7 LA matches, but does need GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More so for his involvement as a cricket coach for which reliable sources exist. I do wish people wouldn't say an article fails NCRICKET without actually understanding NCRICKET! StickyWicket (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a list A cricketer. No harm in keeping. Tintin 02:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List A cricketers don't always pass WP:GNG. Patel has no coverage from his List A appearances and the only coverage of him as a coach is primary or clearly not significant, like the ESPN CricInfo article above (where he's just mentioned briefly in a sentence.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rugbyfan22 and AssociateAffiliate. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any other insight? Cricket isn't my wheelhouse, so perhaps a bit of consensus will help or another reviewer can close accordingly if they know more about cricket.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rugbyfan22 and AssociateAffiliate and as per all. Hypogaearoots (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the text of the NSPORT guidelines, meeting NCRIC does not remove the need to meet GNG, despite what most keep !votes seem to be arguing. JoelleJay (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there's no consensus and JoelleJay probably brings up a valid point....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, versacespace leave a message! 21:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 14:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portal rendering

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

No sources in article, doing WP:BEFORE does not result in good sources. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 21:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 21:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG as a notable term found in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. Sources added to article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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's some dispute as to whether the sources meet GNG or not. Now my job as a closer isn't to say "One side says it's raining, the other that it's sunny", but to open the darn window and take a look. In light of this, the arguments for keeping, citing the basic requirements of GNG ("significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources") are more persuasive than those for deletion (failing SNGs, which are far from being sina-qua-nons, and an apparently incomplete BEFORE search). (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Paul

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. Nothing significant found on WP:BEFORE. The article's references are just her every mentioning, but really IMO does not add up to pass even GNG. Thank you for your feedback and votes. Kolma8 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Some playback singing doesn't put her qualifying NMUSIC.Chirota (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:BASIC. Multiple sources like [1], [2], [3] exists that have more than a paragraph or so on her. There might be more in print. Should be good enough for basic. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep oer Nomadicghumakkad and WP:SINGER no. 10, has performed music for notable films. Furius (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above, qualifies WP:BASIC news coverage is available for her. Riteboke (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Idol TV appearance makes him qualify and meet WP:MUSICBIO.Lesliechin1 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, A BEFORE search doesn’t provide anything significant and the sources aren’t in-depth either. GNG not met. -Xclusivzik (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as User:Nomadicghumakkad points out, there are sources. A quick Wikipedia Proquest search for "Aditi Paul" search finds 107 hits - including some of those listed above. Headlines alone look significant enough to not dig further. Nfitz (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Van Rakshak

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

Fails WP:NFILM... Written as an essay, surely not like a WP article, so aside from it failing NFILM WP:TNT might be needed. Kolma8 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable reviews cited or found. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence for notability fails GNG. GooeyMitch (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 newspapers in Estonia. As WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Estoniya

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

About insignificant former newspaper. Unsourced since 2009. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) isn't sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Klõps (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Klõps (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News Media-related deletion discussions. Klõps (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence for notability fails GNG. GooeyMitch (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: A couple of sources ([4], [5]) mention the paper's predecessor, Sovetskaya Estoniya, but otherwise I didn't find anything about Estoniya itself. I excluded "Sovetskaya" in some other searched hoping to find something, but other than a mention in a report ([6]), there's no significant coverage about this. HoneycrispApples (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of newspapers in Estonia: A redirect to a list article would be a fair alternative to deletion. I do think the name Estoniya is verifiable — this source mentions the "public newspaper Estoniya", and this one mentions it as "The moderate Russian-language paper Estoniya". HoneycrispApples (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of newspapers in Estonia - there's enough coverage of Sovetskaya Estoniya (as an example, the NY Times cited it in 1976) to discuss that newspaper on a list article on the topic of Estonian newspapers, and (assuming the new title is verifiable) this can redirect there as well. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kahaloo Model High School

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG; unable to find anything about this school, does not have multiple sources addressing the subject directly and in detail. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reference in the article is a dead link that sounds from the title like it is trivial anyway. Nothing else exists from what I can tell that would pass the notability guidelines either. Plus, high schools are not inherently notable. So there is zero reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Peneplavím (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of weight-of-evidence articles

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

Delete The complete absence of sources indicates that the articles on this page are essentially a randomly selected set, which may be the result of original research. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely original research to group like this, not seeing the connection between jury nullification and statistical methods. Reywas92^Talk 22:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incoherent hodgepodge of various unrelated meanings of "weight" and "evidence". I have also changed the categorization from "T" (science and technology) to "I" (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge~~ Delete. Indiscriminate and unsourced. Unclear what this should really be. Even if something like this could plausibly pass WP:LISTN, the current list is useless as a starting point, so WP:TNT. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very strange reading experience, but not an encyclopedic list. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsensical collection of topics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it is an article, need to be supported by citations and there are none. Peter303x (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of soap opera recasts

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

This is an extremely long (and yet still incomplete) list of recasts in various soap operas. Main characters? minor characters? doesn't matter this list includes them all. Some are referenced, many are not. Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also does not meet WP:LISTN since many of these characters aren't even notable and there is no source discussing the larger topic of soap opera recasts. Last discussion did not result in a consensus. Rusf10 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first no-con nom was the result of a really bad close with a bludgeon of 'I promise I'll improve it' from an editor that never did (and has been gone since 2014); by count, should've been a clear delete. A katamari mess of all kinds of soaps of all nations in all timeslots and incredibly finite detail which doesn't discrimitate between regular recastings, recasting done for personal problems, and recastings of prop child baby actors done for soap opera rapid aging syndrome reasons. In closing; the article is a total mess. Nate • (chatter) 21:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would think each respective soap opera article would list their characters and actors over the years, not sure why these need to be grouped like this. Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – for the past few months I have been working a lot to improve it and complete it, and I will continue to. I think it should stay. I will work tirelessly to improve it. What can I do?

Some suggestions I have:

Improve the lead and do overview– e.g. talk about temporary recasts, general recasts, SORASing etc.
Include more sources
Make the lists into tables
Make it more complete

I am very happy to do all of this 😊 Personally at first I thought this article was a mess, but the past few months I have worked so hard on improving it and making it more complete and I think that it is a really good page for reference – especially for characters and soap operas which do not have their own pages/sections. DaniloDaysOfOurLives^Talk! 23:45, 15 May 2021

Comment The last thing this article needs is even more lists and tables, and to focus the lede on niche soap jargon the average reader will never understand will make it overbearing. The article already mixes daytime, primetime, and multi-language programs. And even if you can source everything, you're talking a 1,000+ reference section that will break a web browser. Nate • (chatter) 23:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolute trivia that is not backed by any claim of notability. If the topic actually has navigational worth, I'd create a category for actual articles. We definitely don't need a list of every minute recasting to ever exist. TTN (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A category would not work for the characters, as the recast concerns the actors and not the character themselves. – DarkGlow • 11:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I love soap operas, I do not think this topic is particularly notable for its own list. The information about recasts can instead be communicated either on the specific character articles or articles on the show's cast members as a whole. I do not think is a particularly helpful list even for readers interested in this subject. Aoba47 (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This list has potential to be sourced over time, and we have DaniloDaysOfOurLives and myself willing to do that, as well as other potential soap editors. List of soap opera villains is a perfect example that a long list of soap opera characters can be sourced and executed well. I want the article to be draftified so that all previous contributions are attributed if the article one day meets GNG and is moved to mainspace. – DarkGlow • 11:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You can source everything in this article and it would still would still fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTN. It is simply an article that should not exist in any form. I oppose Draftifying.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of what is essentially trivia, that does not pass WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete largely per WP:TNT - many of these are unsourced and unimportant, and the rest is elsewhere. The EastEnders casting information (for example) appears to all be at List of EastEnders characters or subpages, though not in a single list. Without evidence that the topic itself is notable, we don't need a separate page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous editors who have said that this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and I don't think that's a fixable problem in this instance. This information belongs on the articles for the individual soap operas (or characters, as applicable). TompaDompa (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Süleyman Çamlıca

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, being a teenage player in a not-fully professional league, and WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has at most played seven minutes in the Turkish second tier (not fully-pro), and has played 10 games in the current fourth tier. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable footballer fails GNG & NFOOTY JW 1961^Talk 20:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG & NFOOTY . Chirota (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found this article but was unable to find anything that shows a GNG pass Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable player, Doesn't meet minimum notability criteria. GooeyMitch (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Software industry in Chennai

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

No-notability shown, dead sources. A few companies having offices in a city is not a basis for an article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is completely unsourced and has no clear purpose outside saying companies have offices there. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the problems mentioned above, it reads like someone started writing a promotional brochure and gave up three sentences in. XOR'easter (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This type of informative articles at Wikipedia are important to readers along with job seekers. This article explains the software industry in a particular City Chennai, Tamil Nadu, where the state population has 80 million and along with a a million plus outgoing annual graduates. The additional information should be added, it is going to happen over a period of time on wiki page. Applus2021 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We're not the Chennai want-ads, nor LinkedIn. If this is a job-seeker's main place to start a work search, they definitely need intense work counseling, because we shouldn't even be in the conversation. Nate • (chatter) 17:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one short paragraph and one proper reference; this is definitely not notable. --K. Peake 08:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has improved with quality information with reliable sources and passes WP:GNG. I request the above mentioned editors XOR'easter, Nate may recheck and revote, also if deletion required then nominate all states software pages like Software industry in Chennai, Software industry in India, Software industry in Karnataka and Software industry in Telangana along with Software industry in Andhra Pradesh. Take a decision Based on the overall consensus. Applus2021 (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The chesspersons of Chennai seem to have a reputation in the rest of India for not appreciating jokes: and I believe at least one has a jacuzzi availble for meetings, but that is hearsay. On a more serious note a significant hub for outsourcing and software development with a reputedly rigorous regime in some shops. Dead links should be fixed or at least marked, might be recoverable automatically if I could kick IABot to work. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how any of this is based on any WP:IRS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

added two WP:RELIABLE sources to meet WP:GNG, some more will be added over a period of time. Applus2021 (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The key thing I've been concerned with earlier in the day was some really nasty URLs on the article, but I hope Applus2021 has sorted those, they've certainly removed some of my tagging. I'm reasonably sure an interesting article could be here ... a map would be great. There's actually Myriad of sources out there for this, so many its actually harder to select good stuff from flotsam. From memory one or maybe two on the article with Applus2021's latest edits look WP:RS, the may both be "TheHindu" related. Before closing by browsers today I note: "DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT TO MEASURE WORK LIFE BALANCE OF IT PROFESSIONALS IN CHENNAI ISSN 0976-6502 (Print) ISSN 0976-6510 (Online) Volume 5, Issue 11, November (2014), pp. 21-33"; [7], phttps://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/%60Chennai-most-attractive-city-for-offshoring-services/article20203905.ece], "Fuller, C. J., and Haripriya Narasimhan. “Information Technology Professionals and the New-Rich Middle Class in Chennai (Madras).” Modern Asian Studies, vol. 41, no. 1, 2007, pp. 121–150. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4132346. Accessed 27 Apr. 2021.". We are likely able to find more. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

added two WP:RELIABLE recent sources, Chennai is the home for 7 top rated IT companies out of 15 in India CNBC and The Economic Times source says Chennai is the hub for deep tech startups, some more will be added over a period of time. Applus2021 (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the course of discussion article improvements I note there are two loosely related articles/redirects that others have idnetified: I T Corridor->Rajiv Gandhi Salai and List of tech parks in Chennai, both really themselves in need of improvement. I am certainly not in favour of any merges at this point, and there is not a perfect fit for a merge anyway. Also I am also not in favour of an early merge of immature articles as it can stifle and straightjacket article development: this is similarities to (old school) software development where code optimisation is often better deferred; that is not to say major inefficiencies may not need to be tackled early. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not impossible that the software industry in Chennai might be a reliable subject. However, the current version of the article only has one source discussing the subject directly [8]. The rest is either WP:SYNTH or broken. A WP:TNT is in order. JBchrch (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: added software backend services content, majority sources are recent and all sources passes WP:RELIABLE to meet WP:GNG. Moreover topic is important to the Tamil Nadu, India and major sources are government related works. Applus2021 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of nomination the article has only one source with dead link, now the article has 23+ WP:RELIABLE sources, please re-check JBchrch, Headbomb,Djm-leighpark Applus2021 (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The material Djm-leighpark has included puts the topic above the bar for me, although I was worried that this could be a high-maintenance article that we would better merge into the subsection of Information technology in India. However, the article is richly interlinked with other articles and I think our coverage of Indian IT would suffer if we were to go that route. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of major news media and newspaper references there - 22 references to be exact. This article is definitely worth keeping! Kent Warfield (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None are about software in Chennai as a topic, they're trivial press-release type of stuff that happen to be about topic X in city Y. I could find dozens of articles related to "Weather in Grande-Anse, NB" but that doesn't make the topic notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and added, all the sources are relevant and topics on Software, deeptech, Startups and IT services only. Please read the titles and content at article references section. Applus2021 (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Topic can be adequately covered (and with a greater chance of maintaining overall perspective) at Information_technology_in_India#Chennai. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment India has high density population cities, majorly working under software service sector or back end IT/ITeS support services. In my opinion city wise and state wise articles are required instead of single article with inadequate information. see Software companies of the United States by state [9]

These are categories, not articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 17:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic-wise, it can't be said non-notable. Content wise it needs a better writeup, but the present state is not too bad to delete. Agreeing with Djm-leighpark's rationale. Chirota (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the provided sources support the article and are plenty. As far as it being a proper topic for Wiki, I couldn't say. Is there any guidelines stating this type of topic is not allowed? Peter303x (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more cleanup is needed, but enough has been done. The topic is notable and a merge to Economy of Chennai isn't helpful now that sourced content has been added. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uber-local food

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

Fails WP:GNG, a search turns up almost nothing outside of a single case study and promotional materials for a Seattle business Dexxtrall (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, still weak but there is also an article using the term here. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be an attempted WP:NEOLOGISM that never actually became the subject of wide spread use or discussion. There are a handful of places that use the term here and there, but any actual discussion of the concept is scant-to-nonexistent in them. Rorshacma (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism in very limited use. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. I don't see enough usage to even justify a redirect to Local food; Google search is filled with Uber (company) topics. The uses I find are just people using "uber" as a generic adjective, not as part of a specifically-defined term. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources other than the one cookbook (which does appear notable) have been found, and even the one "keep" opinion agrees that "that one source may not be enough to establish notability". Sandstein 19:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soup all'Imperatrice

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

Hoax article with a single source which appears to be a hoax book by Paul Cresswell Theroadislong (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it may be worth noting that the editor who created this article quoted the source as "The Cook's Decameron: A Study in Taste, Containing Over Two Hundred Recipes for Italian Dishes" which is a valid source from 1901. I would not contest a deletion for a number of other reasons, but the original source looks sound. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there some sort of WP:NDISH apart fron WP:GNG? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another source does exist, however it is in Italian. [10] Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy to be proved wrong here, just that the given source did look like an elaborate hoax. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that source is, as I said, it's in Italian. It would need to have its info translated and then put on the article. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1854, impressive. Now I want to know which Empress. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Blaze The Wolf, what Theroadislong is saying is that they feel both the article and the source used is a hoax. They aren’t saying it’s a bad source because it’s an Italian one, rather their argument is that it may be a hoax. A non English source is just as good as an English source. Or is there an RFC I’m not aware of? Celestina007 (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's a bad source. I'm just saying there might be some issues getting it to be part of the article because it's italian so it would have to have the information being put into the article translated. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This is not a hoax and the book is not a hoax, and the book is in English not Italian. There is a Wikipedia stub article about it, The Cook's Decameron, and the Gutenberg Project hosts the full public domain text of the book. Here is the recipe:

No. 28. Soup all'Imperatrice: Ingredients: Breast of fowl, eggs, salt, pepper, ground rice, nutmeg, clear stock. Pound the breast of a fowl in a mortar, and add to it a teaspoonful of ground rice, the yolk of an egg, salt, pepper, and a pinch of nutmeg. Pass this through a sieve, form quenelles with it, and pour a good clear soup over them.

That one source may not be enough to establish notability but it invalidates earlier arguments to delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a 1902 review of this cookbook in the magazine associated with The Boston Cooking-School Cook Book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have looked through a few of my Italian cookbooks, including Lidia Bastianich's Mastering the Art of Italian Cuisine. It isn't mentioned anywhere. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources online, even using the Italian zuppa all'Imperatric. It is not the same as Carne all'Imperatrice. I also did some Italian language searches - nothing. Does not pass GNG IMHO. Missvain (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that I have AfD'd The Cook's Decameron because of unclear notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the slight confusion over sources, there is no evidence here, or in searches or in a reasonably extensive library of recipe books that I have available that this was anything other than one author's personal recipe. There is nothing to indicate any notability or indeed, any significance. Just another recipe. Fails WP:GNG . Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly I was wrong in my original assertion that this was a hoax, it does not appear to be a notable recipe however. Happy for the afc to be closed and article tagged for notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Per {{u|pburka}'s sources. Sandstein 10:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Cook's Decameron

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

1901 cookbook. No secondary sources, no claim to notability and none is evident. Search results are directory entries of reprints. Sandstein 16:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book was popular enough to justify a 2nd edition nearly 20 years after the first and has been the subject of many published reviews, e.g.
- M. (22 June 1901). "Cooks in Council". The Speaker: The Liberal Review: 342.
- "Other New Books". Literature: 540. 22 June 1901.
- "London Letter". New York Times Saturday Review. 13 July 1901. p. BR16.
- "Cook Books". Book News. 20: 324. December 1902.
- Kirkham, Victoria (2012). "The Cook's Decameron, or, Boccaccio to the Rescue of the Dull British Diet". Boccaccio in America: 2010 International Boccaccio Conference. Longo. pp. 31–65. doi:10.1400/191341.
- Spieler, Marlena (2018). A Taste of Naples: Neapolitan Culture, Cuisine, and Cooking. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 194. ISBN 9781442251267.

Given that so little content from that time period has been digitized, it's fair to assume there's a lot more than just these, but the chapter from the 2010 Boccaccio Conference ought to be nearly sufficient on its own to establish notability per WP:NBOOK. pburka (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PCDitch

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

This is non-notable modelling software. The refs in the article aren't sufficient for this to pass GNG and while there are offline refs I have little doubt they are of a similar vein. Before showing nothing exept wp mirrors and few scientific journals. Created by a single purpose account, tagged advert since 2015, the talk page has never been created. Desertarun (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Non Notable Software. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shelagh Duffett

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

Semi-advertorialized biography of a recently deceased artist, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for artists. The strongest notability claim here, that her work is held in private and public collections (entirely unnamed except for "the paediatric ward of a St. Louis, USA hospital", which is not a notability-clinching art gallery), is referenced to her own self-published website -- and other than that, the footnotes are two pieces of "local artist dies" in the local media of her own hometown and her paid-inclusion obituary from the newspaper classifieds, which is not enough coverage to get her over WP:GNG in lieu of having to have a notability claim stronger than having one piece in a hospital pediatric ward. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to show a lot more coverage and analysis of her significance than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I see in a search are the obituaries. No indication of shows, reviews, collections or critical coverage. GNG/NARTIST fail.--- Possibly (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, GNG fail. Curiocurio (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Nothing found indicating notability. Kolma8 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As nom, no indepth sources available. fails GNG. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Joseph Ellsworth

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

Completely unsourced biography of a person with no obvious notability claim. The strongest claim here (that he lived to be 114 years old) isn't an instant notability freebie in the absence of reliable sources, particularly because it deeply strains the bounds of credibility in the absence of really solid genealogical verification, and other than that his notability boils down to "he did some local-interest stuff". Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability — in fact, I was sorely tempted to just speedy it for lacking any properly verified notability claims at all, but it's been flying under the radar for almost 15 years and I don't feel comfortable speedying an article that old without discussion. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no actual substaial claim to notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced biography of a claimed supercentenarian. Fails verification. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Lasby

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

Biography of a person whose notability claim (purportedly holding the Guinness World Record for the oldest pilot ever to fly around the world) is not adequately sourced. As always, people are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because the article has the words "Guinness World Record" in it -- between the ways Guinness can be manipulated into conferring records for inconsequential silly things and the way records can be outdone in the future and/or simply conferred on the wrong person at the time due to inadequate research, simply holding a Guinness record (or claiming to) is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on genuine media coverage in real reliable sources. But apart from one news article while the flight was underway (thus failing to verify that he actually holds a Guinness record, as it was published before the record would have been conferred), the only other source here is his standard paid-inclusion obituary in the newspaper classifieds, which is not notability-supporting coverage at all -- and while there were two other sources previously here, one was an unrecoverable dead link from a community hyperlocal in his own hometown whose content is entirely impossible to verify at all, and the other was a completely unreliable directory listing on the self-published website of a non-notable organization, so neither of them were doing anything to help. Nothing stated here is enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more reliable source coverage in real media than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I punched his name into Newspapers.com and there were a couple public interest stories. Basically we have a WP:1E where neither the event nor the participant in the event is notable beyond a news cycle. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 22:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability tests. Like SportingFlyer, I also spent some time searching for this person on Newspapers.com and could not find anything that would meet WP standards for notability. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Jamieson

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

Article about an educator and writer, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion tests for educators or writers. Three of the four footnotes here aren't doing anything to establish notability: there's the self-published website of the band government of her own community, an archival fonds in which her name appears in primary source organizational records rather than as a subject of published coverage, and a museum exhibition catalogue, none of which are notability-supporting sources, and while there is also one genuinely reliable article about her in a real magazine, getting a person over WP:GNG takes a lot more than that. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more than just one acceptable reliable source. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Norman reference is truly in-depth, reliable, and independent. I added two more sources, a newspaper clipping by Beaver about naming a school after her and a newspaper story about the school she taught at with a paragraph about her teaching there. They are not as in-depth as Norman but I think their coverage is nontrivial enough to count towards WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per David Eppstein. The reporter, George Beaver also published a book[11] in 1997, with his news articles about the Six Nations. Unfortunately GoogleBooks does not allow preview but a snippet view search shows that the article in question is reprinted on p. 59 there. I think there is enough here for WP:GNG in view of the quality of Alison Norman reference. Nsk92 (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per David Eppstein. Important figure and educator and her work is discussed in a scientific publication. Clearly notable. --hroest 00:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per David Eppstein. Has in-depth sources which can be counted towards for GNG. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anise#Uses. Sandstein 20:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aniseed twist

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

Definitely exists, but my WP:Before search only found listings in candy shops rather than any sizable articles on the history and significance of this sugary treat. Coin945 (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - I failed to find how this candy qualifies for inclusion aside from mere existing. It's not mentioned significantly in any cookbooks, candy history books, history books, or online media/sources outside of shops where you can buy it. I suggest merging, anything of value (even passing mention?), to Anise#Uses OR List_of_candies#United_Kingdom as an WP:Alternative to deletion. Missvain (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Missvain, though my preference would actually to create List of British confectionary and merge it there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stairs. Sandstein 20:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scale-and-platt

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

Dic def. Unsourced since 2007. Coin945 (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with Stairs. There are definitely sources out there,[12] but there is no need for a separate article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At most redirect to Stairs, no merge, unless someone can demonstrate that this is anything other than an archaic Scots term for a standard straight staircase. Staircases are ubiquitous everywhere in the world and throughout all of history, and it isn't as if Scottish staircases have a unique design never seen elsewhere; if I'm going to persuaded that this is anything other than a synonym I'd at minimum expect to see both a non-Scottish source, and a source less than 50 years old, using the term. I'm unconvinced even a redirect would serve any useful purpose—nobody is going to search for "Scale-and-platt" rather than "Stairs"—but redirects are cheap. There's a much more lengthy comment from me in this thread on my talk, which I won't copy across to here so as not to overwhelm the AfD debate. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Wars Tales. This is not a result of mass merge - the other articles were not tagged with AfD notices or linked here, so from the standpoint of the AfD process I can't "legally" close this as a mass nomination. That being said there's nothing preventing anyone from boldly merging the others or opening a merge discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Tales Volume 3

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

This article, along with its siblings '1' through '6' don't need to exist when Star Wars Tales is itself a barely sourced stub. Coin945 (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all with Star Wars Tales - Citing the quality of a current revision of another article is not a valid policy-based reason for deletion. However, I don't believe the topic of collected editions is separate enough from the main topic to warrant individual articles. It's unlikely that each individual collected edition has reliable significant coverage that is separate from that of Star Wars Tales as a whole. A quick search for "Star Wars Tales Volume 1" only seems to pull up Wiki articles, blog reviews, and several store listings, none of which meet the threshold for WP:SIGCOV. Dark knight 2149 06:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Star Wars Tales - None of these individual collections are notable enough, nor have enough coverage in reliable sources, to warrant a WP:SPLIT from the main article. The actual pieces of information for the individual issues, such as the publication and creator info, would be better included in the main article on the series. Rorshacma (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per above. The merge itself may be tricky, as there is a lot of unsourced content (technically, sourced implicitly to the books themselves) which may need to be removed for editorial reasons. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Mironov (entomologist)

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

Fails WP:NACADEMICS; there's no evidence that the subject has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline. The article relies on a single primary source and virtually nothing seems to be known about him apart from the species described by him. See also the discussion at User talk:Estopedist1#Vladimir Mironov. Lennart97 (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per proposer; no evidence of sufficient notability. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NPROF. --hroest 00:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond the single-digit citations giving a failure of WP:PROF#C1, we also have nothing about him beyond his few publications to use as the basis for a verifiable article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and others. This also has by far the most recent date for which I've seen floruit used... JoelleJay (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On some other language Wikipedias, having named species is considered qualifying for notability, but it isn't enough for EnWiki (and rightly so). He has a decent Wikispecies entry, which is where he belongs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate list, such as List of Estonian entomologists (not sure what nationality this person is), or else delete. There are a number of these sub-stubs, concerning people with absolutely no notability outside having described a couple genuses of insect. jp×g 00:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Mironov is Russian according to his Wikispecies entry. If List of Russian entomologists were to be created, I agree that would be an excellent redirect target; I like what you did with List of Estonian entomologists. Lennart97 (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the corresponding list. Partly or temporary solution by user:JPxG is a clever move. However, the list-solution is not proper for any cases, because consider that we have all Vladimir Mironov taxons (100+) in enwiki, and it is irrational to name all these taxons under List of Russian entomologists. One solution is category:Vladimir Mironov (entomologist) taxa (already in Wikispecies:Category:Vladimir Georgievich Mironov taxa)--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: The current article on Mironov doesn't list his 100+ taxons, so his entry in a list of entomologists wouldn't have to do so either, right? It seems to me that whether to create a category for his taxons is a separate issue from whether to merge his article into a list. Lennart97 (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olivio Premium Products

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

Sources do not establish notability. I found nothing in a google search. NW1223 | Howl at me 12:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No effective sources. scope_creep^Talk 23:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meetWP:GNG and has no significant coverage.Webmaster862 (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Fables characters#Flycatcher. Daniel (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flycatcher (comics)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to the most trivial of mentions. Seems like a waste of time AfD that never have been deprodded, unless I'm searching incorrectly. TTN (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to find coverage in sources such as Contemporary Comics Storytelling and so policy WP:ATD applies "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 18:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really still not look at the sources you post? How hard is it to take three seconds to read that and realize it's a panel by panel analysis of a page featuring the character and not actual commentary on the character? TTN (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The work is written by a Professor in Comparative Literature, was published by the University of Nebraska Press and I consider it quite satisfactory for our purpose. Per the fable of the miller, his son and the donkey, this may not please everyone but so it goes. My !vote stands, being based on both policy and evidence. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per usual, you dodge the actual point with an absolute nonsense rebuttal. Please explain how several pages dissecting the framing of comic panels is relevant to an article on the character. Being mentioned in the context of the dissection does not itself inherently equate to coverage on the character. TTN (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The analysis says things like "The following panels take the reader into the fictional mind of Flycatcher ... We see the facial expression of Flycatcher and construct his intuitive response." These descriptions and insights are clearly WP:SIGCOV. Q.E.D. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you dodge the question. Please explain how the analysis of the panels is relevant to the character rather than simply using the character as a vehicle to convey their point on framing a character's emotional state and inner thoughts through drawings and panel layout. TTN (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, Setting aside the point made by TTN that the Flycatcher is not the main subject of the analysis, two sentences are hardly sufficient for SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Fables characters#Flycatcher - That list is a complete mess and needs some massive cleanup, but Flycatcher is actually one of the major characters of the series that should actually be covered there. I found a small bit of actual analysis of the character that goes beyond plot summary in this book, but its the only decent thing I could find. As described in detail by TTN already, the source mentioned by Andrew above is not actually about the character himself, and contains no actual information that could be integrated into the article in anyway or provide notability. Rorshacma (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Fables characters#Flycatcher. Not enough for a stand-alone article, but a redirect is reasonable. SOFTDELETE to facilitate merging and to avoid hassle in years to come, maybe he will get some SIGCOV and then this can be more easily restored. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Fables characters#Flycatcher, as not enough coverage for a separate page. Riteboke (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator; one delete vote from before new sources were added. (non-admin closure) Tol | Talk | Contribs 18:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Bhi Akele Tum Bhi Akele

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

Non notable film, fails WP:NFILM as only things found in a WP:BEFORE are film database sites, promotional material, and articles about the actors appearing in the film...no reviews or anything else of substance.

PROD removed because "There is no need for deleting this page. References citations are adequately provided in the page", but all references cited are about a trailer for the film being released, articles about the actors, or notifications of the film being released. No (non user/non blog) reviews cited or found. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough to pass WP:GNG and/or WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added 3 full-length reviews from IE, Firstpost, and Cinema Express. Should be enough to pass WP:NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Ab207. It's a relatively new film and more reviews should appear. But, two reviews in first post and Indian express is sufficient to keep it even now. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. Sources seem enough now to qualify NFILM. Riteboke (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved with details of three reviews in reliable sources Indian Express, First Post and Cinema Express which is part of The New Indian Express. Therefore WP:GNG and WP:NFILM are passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article now have reviews from National Herald, Indian Express, and Times of India. Enough to pass WP:NFILM. SunDawn (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for all the new sources. I believe this film passes now. Nomination withdrawn. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 10:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Binsky

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

Travel Blogger not meeting WP:BIO. AntiVan (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources seem reliable, and plenty of them. Meets WP:BASIC. LizardJr8 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Plenty of sigcov. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Source added and there are plenty more out there, although the article already passed GNG/BASIC. Sam Sailor 15:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: enough to pass notability. Kolma8 (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG as good amount of reliable sources available. Although, more improvements can be done. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Big Mouth Billy Bass. Daniel (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gemmy Industries

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

Non-notable business. Nearly all references are to sponsored product articles and listings; the only exception (an article on MentalFloss) focuses on the company's only product that saw a brief commercial success in summer 2000. All in all, the company does not pass WP:NCORP on a single criteria. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. AntiVan (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Dexxtrall (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article should speak for itself, and the article does not establish corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stub and merge I was torn on this when I found it and cleaned it up after finding it in the backlog. Non-notable company made a notable product is always weird. I think it's worth merging a sentence or two to Big_Mouth_Billy_Bass which, admittedly, needs a massive cleanup as well. StarM 14:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will certainly support merge and redirect as nom. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonita Lontoh

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

Relisting after the last Afd was skewed by confirmed sockpuppet accounts. Apologize in advance for amount of text ahead...

Reason #1: Not notable coverage under WP:NBIO. Some limited coverage of this person but very limited in-depth media coverage. Of the meaningful coverge of Sonita Lontoh, it's almost all from questionable sources like alumni blogs, conference speaker bios, and "news sites" that don't appear to have true editorial oversight. Other coverage of this person is entirely based on information provided by the subject and fails WP:IS.

For the major news outlets: the sources from CNN, Bloomberg, Forbes, and BBC, all are WP:TRIVIALMENTION. For example that don't touch on meaningful professional contributions, see their titles: "Five Executives on How They Unplug", "avoid money talks", "the lifestyles of the young and ultra-rich", and "Here's How To Avoid An Impersonal Hiring Process." article. None of these articles establish this person as a notable contributor in their field and just include a quick snippet/quote from this person off topic from their professional contributions.

Subject did get coverage in Tatler Indonesia but that's a gossip mag and not a source for quality technology coverage.

Reason #2: Many details lack verifiability. Many of the details in this article are not verifiable and fail WP:NRV. The detail about John Kerry is not cited from any neutral source and doesn't state an official event or date. I cannot find WP:IS source for this. The same is true for the Global Emerging Leader Under 40 award; who issued this award and when? It's concerning that sources cite this award without stating which body issued it; this make the award questionable as well as the sources citing it. For the TechWomen committee member, what committee and what years did they serve? No source with this information. I cannot find a source for this that not a bio of Lontoh. The most cited source in this article is Asian American Press which appears to be a WP:NEWSBLOG without fact checking. As a result, this article likely doesn't meet WP:BLP.

Reason #3: Some claims that appear notable at first glance are not that notable: For the AAPI Women Champion of Change, she was not an awardee but an attendee of the event. Attending an event does not equal notability. The TechWomen is a program that anyone can sign up to be a mentor for; there's an online application. See note above about committee role. The Asian Hall of Fame award doesn't seem notable as there is not many if any WP:IS coverage on this award. It might just be starting out or something because Google returns mostly PR Newswire press releases. The Silicon Valley Asia Technology Alliance, which presumes notability of Lontoh as is one of the org's co-founders, isn't very notable. The top google results for the org are their press releases hosted on pr web, a Tech in Asia article, her wikipedia page, and then her linkedin. It also doesn't appear to be around anymore as the website is broken, fails WP:NTEMP

Ew3234 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I largely agree with the critique of the article as laid out above, but my view is that there are sources that would allow a decent article to be written. I believe that the coverage across Tatler Indonesia (which IMO, if it is reliable, is reliable for this article), Asian Fortune, Jawa Pos and Prestige Indonesia mentioned in the earlier AfD amounts to adequate coverage in independent reliable sources to meet GNG. I've found a couple of possible further sources:

"Breaking the Mold: Women in Additive Manufacturing" by Rehana Begg, Machine Design. Mar 2021, Vol. 93 Issue 3, p24-26. (Lontoh was one of three panellists at the event that this is about, but I don't have full text access to see the extent of any relevant coverage)
"They didn't mean to be discriminatory" by Don Loepp, Plastics News 4/1/2019, Vol. 30 Issue 4, p6 (Again, I don't have full access. Apparently "It presents views of Sonita Lontoh, global head and vice president of marketing for 3D print and digital manufacturing at HP Inc., on plastics industry.")
also, a newswire item so won't add to the case for GNG, but I saw that this was published on 21 April.

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BennyOnTheLoose, great to see you again. The Machine Design and Plastics News appear to be industry/trade publications, which I recall are questionble sources (though I cannot find the policy or essay atm). I think I commented on the other articles on the 1st Afd except the Jawa Pos article. That source reads as promotional and I question it as a WP:IS because it states "Sonita was named a 'Global Emerging Leader under 40' in the United States" which makes me question how well this was fact checked because no awarding body is named. Googling 'Global Emerging Leader under 40' doesn't turn up any answers either. Also, do you have any sources that address the verifiability issues? Ew3234 (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. We obviously have a difference on opinion on the reliability of sources. Let's hope that other editors help the debate along. The verifiability issues would be best dealt with by removing unverified information from the article, I think. This PR piece says that it was the The Indonesian Professionals Association (IPA) that made the "Global Emerging Leader under 40 Award." If this article and award are kept then I think it's better to source the awarding body to a PR item than not to mention who the award was from at all. Happy to be corrected on any point if I'm directed to the relevant policy. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to letting others weigh in. Not sure the PR site passes the sniff test. Searching the org name and the award name together only returns a single Google result: that PR peice. That's a massive red flag that there's something shady with the PR peice, and emblematic of my verifiability concerns with these poor sources. Ew3234 (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:L235**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Bloomberg	Interview; primary			✘ No
CNN Money	Interview; primary		Listing in "list of" type article on couples	✘ No
AAPress		?	Listing in article about many awardees	✘ No
Cleveland Business Journal			One-line listing without any further info	✘ No
SWA 2013	~ Mostly interview; interview parts are primary.		~ Mostly interview; non-interview parts are not particularly significant.	~ Partial
CBS SF BayArea	Mostly interview; interview parts are primary.		Local news human interest story, not particularly SIGCOV.	✘ No
Tatler	Mostly interview; interview parts are primary.			✘ No
MIT	Primary			✘ No
BBC	~		Four sentences on what she does with her money (not what she would presumably be "notable" for) is not SIGCOV.	✘ No
Tech in Asia	Mostly an interview; primary			✘ No
NBC Bay Area Proud	Interview; primary			✘ No
CNN Indonesia	Interview; primary			✘ No
Jakarta Globe			Opinion piece	✘ No
SWA 2015	?			? Unknown
NW Asian Weekly			Two sentence mention (plus quote from Lontoh) in context of article listing awards is not SIGCOV.	✘ No
Tempo	~			~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Weak delete. Above is a quick-ish source assessment table, which doesn't show enough for notability. Additionally, BennyOnTheLoose's sources don't contribute, either as trade publications or primary prnewswire. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Delete - The Asian Fortune article is the most convinincing support, but only in that she was selected - as a bundle of direct quotes it doesn't really count as coverage. Does not meet WP:BIO. AntiVan (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assessment of sources does not show that the subject meets WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 00:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Birss

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

Creativity theorist does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage consists of self-published sources, interviews or passing mentions in coverage about the books. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello MrsSnoozyTurtle, nice to see you again :). Can we remove the title creativity theorist to resolve the issue? Thank you. --Fiz327 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fiz327. Nice to see you too. If the issue was merely those two words, I would not have nominated the article for deletion. PS I have now placed this comment of yours in the correct location. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most notable achievement is as an author, but he's a long way short of the WP:AUTHOR tests. For general notability, the coverage in reliable sources is only tangential - not covering a notable achievement or contribution in his field. AntiVan (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG from my research. Non-notable podcasts, one interview in one good publication, other than that, passing mentions or non-reliable secondary sources. Too soon perhaps for this subject to have a Wikipedia article. Missvain (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Media in Egypt. Noting the consensus that the article shouldn't remain, I am sympathetic to Piotr's comment regarding preserving. Therefore, I have redirected to allow the content to be rescued from behind the redirect, if there is an editorial desire to merge somewhere. Daniel (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moheet

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

No significant coverage per WP:WEB and the website doesn't exist anymore. SL93 (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC) 09:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The website will be back. It's getting a revamp. It has been one of the major websites to get Arabic news since the early days of the Arabic Internet and especially in the late nineties and the first decade of the 2000's. You can ask the administrators of the Arabic Wikipedia about its importance --Salah Almhamdi (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Salah Almhamdi, WP:ITSIMPORTANT or "in our experience" is not good enough. We need sources to prove this is the case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I really wish we could keep it, but my source review only found few citations plus one sentence of analysis (about its bias) in a niche academic paper (and quoted in few others); I've added that cite to the article. So on the surface, yes, this fails WEB/GNG. That said, WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is also an issue and sources may exist in Arabic. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not enough for me to vote keep, but given the systemic bias issue, I am also not prepared to vote delete. That said, I am leaning to weak delete given it does not appear in top 50 sites in Egypt or Saudi Arabila ([13], [14] according to Alexa). PS. The portal is offline, according to LoC, since 2017 [15]? Here's a very brief mention of it getting blocked in Egypt around that time: [16]. Anyway, this means that current Alexa ranking is not good, we would need to look at historical one, and that is not free. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It appears to fail WP:GNG/WP:WEB, but my view would change if actual significant coverage in reliable sources can be found in historical sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. I take User:Piotrus's point about WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, but feel that the Arab language version being smaller and having no sources suggests we can discount that argument somewhat. AntiVan (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any thoughts on where this could be redirected or even better, merged? Maybe Media in Egypt? WP:PRESERVE would be nice here, given the systemic bias (maybe there are sources in Arabic, but we don't have volunteers to search for them...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an editor based in the Arab world who often finds himself fighting a lone fight, I'm probably relatively sensitive to the idea of systemic bias. In this case, however, I don't think it applies. Moheet is a dead site - currently a blank page with 'wait it's coming' in Arabic. When it comes, if it comes, and someone says something (anything) about its coming, then it will be 'a thing'! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Laura Vargas Villaveces

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

Non-notable artist, fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are very hard to find in a search. There are one or two good ones at most. Some of the ones that were given in the article are not acceptable (Skilshare, Facebook) so I have removed them. GNG fail.--- Possibly (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet any of the four points of WP:ARTIST. AntiVan (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST. Can't see any source on a google search. Riteboke (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero hits on Google News. Searches on Google didn't establish any notability, as some of the results are about unrelated stuff. SunDawn (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Guy Vasilovich

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

Non-notable media personnel. Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. AntiVan (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE either, and doesn't inherit notability from the one TV series about Iggy. LizardJr8 (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Need more notable work and sources to qualify. Riteboke (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 00:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Babelscores

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

Online database of musical scores. I think this is probably a well-intentioned creation, but it is ultimately an advertisement with no independent sources. The use of Harvard and Princeton, for example is deceptive because the sources are just pages that say the university has paid to access the Babelscores database. I saw no independent coverage. --- Possibly (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. AntiVan (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator's argument is convincing, and a business or website is not notable because it has customers. This one has received no independent coverage as an entity in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources provided are not providing in-depth coverage of the service, links from BNF, Yale, or Princeton is basically just saying that the university subscribes to Babelscore and here is what Babelscore is doing. None of the sources are independent. Like the nominator, I am sure that this is a well-intentioned creation but there is not enough sources to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia. SunDawn (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Claire

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

Non-notable musician, cannot find any sources providing RS sigcov, it's all either social media mentions, directory listings or interviews. Possibly just a case of WP:TOOSOON, but regardless, for now fails WP:GNG / WP:MUSICBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources found via Google news do not constitute WP:SIGCOV even put together. VV 08:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Dexxtrall (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO -Xclusivzik (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Nothing found indicating notability. Kolma8 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO, no notable work yet to qualify. Riteboke (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per opening Del rationale by DoubleGrazing and further input by Kolma8. MUSICBIO is simply not met at this time. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. Lesliechin1 (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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's consensus that the article's subject is notable and that, while the article needs work, AfD isn't clean-up. (non-admin closure) versacespace leave a message! 00:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snowplough turn

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

Reads as a dicdef and has been unsourced since 2007. Is there really a need for such an article, or can't it just be mentioned in Skiing? Coin945 (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an under-developed article. However, the topic is too specific for inclusion in Skiing without enumerating and describing every other skiing technique. It's notability is shown by being described in many references:

Using "snowplow":

Skiing - Dec 1973 - Page 146
Basic Cold Weather Manual - Page 87
Boys' Life - Feb 1967 - Page 50
How the Racers Ski - Page 116
Skiing - Dec 1969 - Page 123
Invitation to Modern Skiing - Page 81

Using "snowplough":

The Complete Skiing Handbook - Page 76
Dyslexia: Developing the Debate
Junior Ski School - Page 44
Skiing Made Easy: Complete beginner to parallel turns - Page 30
Skiing and Snowboarding: 52 brilliant ideas for fun on the ... - Page 99
The Technique of Mountaineering: A Handbook of Established ...

Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have expanded the article to include a basic structure and references. HopsonRoad (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but question: ploughing is not just a technique for turning, but for braking in straight sections as well. Could the article reflect that as well? Geschichte (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geschichte, a good topic for Talk:Snowplough turn. HopsonRoad (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no need for this AfD per WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think relisting this was unnecessary, it could have probably been closed as keep per WP:HEY. I suppose it would be possible to merge to Alpine skiing#Technique (or create a separate Alpine skiing techniques article), but considering how lengthy the carved turn article is, we're probably better off having separate articles. TompaDompa (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LT24

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

Considering this article doesn't have a mirror in Spanish Wikipedia, it already sets off alarm bells. That, plus it's been unsourced since March 2007. Time for an investigation, methinks. Coin945 (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an utter disaster! But this station definitely exists and this La Nación article from 2004 calls it one of interior Argentina's oldest stations; it started as a carrier current/cable station, too. Keep and let me fix this mess. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Coin945: I've at least made the page a reasonable stub. A lot of dead sites and probably undigitized source material. Sometimes with Argentina it's tough to get even the basic info on a station, especially legal records. eswiki is known to find most radio stations not notable by their standards, by the way. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sammi, whose judgement I am inclined to trust as unimpeachable within her niche. Comparing notability between different projects is hard; by conventional wisdom enwiki is more likely to delete, but there are quite a few cases where the other major projects define things stricter than we do. Vaticidalprophet 05:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, Seems a notable radio station. Although, further improvements can be done to make it as per wiki guidelines. GooeyMitch (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Sanson

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC not enough news coverage CeltJungleSnake (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NMUSIC, covered on many reputed news magazines. Hypogaearoots (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above qualifies WP:MUSICBIO significant news available about her. Riteboke (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is significant news coverage.Lesliechin1 (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above passes WP:GNG significant news coverage. Peneplavím (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Records

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

Failure of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP. The company didn't belong to one particular individuals and there's no specifically suitable redirect target, thus should be deleted. Graywalls (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is one of the more important (punk) indie labels, with a sizeable roster. The search results seem to be skewed somewhat due to the label being setup by band members of The Vandals. Speaking of which, as an WP:ATD, in the worst case sceanrio, then redirect to the band. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is one of the more important (punk) indie labels, umm ok, but do you have significant, independent, reliable sources attesting to that and covering about THE COMPANY, the RECORD LABEL, in details as required to meet NCORP? Graywalls (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found and added more sources, including the Hollywood Reporter. Although many are not in-depth, some are about the company (such as lawsuits) or mention the company. In google news, you will see many pages of info coming up about them and they also had Blink-182 on he label once. Several of the bands also are notable and have Wiki pages. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bands released through this label being notable does not make a difference per WP:INHERITORG. Graywalls (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator claims that, because there are three possible redirect targets (The Vandals and the two members of the Vandals who founded the label), no single redirect makes sense, and so the only reasonable action is for us to turn this into a redlink. This makes no sense - it actively makes the site less informative, less interlinked, less user-friendly for enthusiasts in the area of interest. The commenters above are, implicitly, gesturing toward WP:MUSIC, which, again, makes much more sense as a yardstick than WP:CORP for labels (again, a band is unquestionably a for-profit corporation, but I'll eat my hat if we start applying CORP to bands). This is a label big enough to make CMJ for its legal activities (for Pete's sake!), and it was a feeder label for some quite noteworthy pop-punk bands of the Nineties. It's plainly encyclopedic, and if the misapplication of CORP and ORGIND and INHERIT are keeping us from seeing that, we should ignore them. If there is some other action (such as a merge) that anyone wants to pursue, feel free - but this is the wrong venue for that. Chubbles (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Chubbles and all above, should qualify for CORP now with coverage in reliable sources. Peneplavím (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A-SUN Energy

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

The article does not meet basic WP:NOTABLE requirements. Google searches turn up little-to-nothing regarding the company. There are two sources cited in the article as it currently stands. Both are random industry magazines. The company's website does not load a page. Finally, this article was created by User:Asunrapha back in 2011. It probably should've been deleted right there and then.

If I had to hazard a guess, the company folded not too long after it began considering its search engine concealment. Abillionradios (talk) 07:08, 15 May 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 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:19, 15 May 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 I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be related to Aton Energy (no article) whose history also shows the 2010-11 English installation. Be that as it may, supplying the first installation of a particular size is not inherently notable, and I am not seeing evidence that this company/brand attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find sources in my searches that would allow the company to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG lacks coverage in news and media. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage.Webmaster862 (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Citobun (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 04:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anu Singh Lather

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

Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG limited coverage CeltJungleSnake (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WP:NACADEMIC#6 states The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. . She is the current Vice-Chancellor of Ambedkar University Delhi. BTW it passes WP:NACADEMIC. Vice Chancelors of major universities are notable as per WP:Academic. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NACADEMIC#6, has held many notable posts. Hypogaearoots (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies C6. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Vice chancellor is not the highest administrative post at Ambedkar University Delhi (that'd be chancellor), and I don't think vice chancellor of a small university satisfies WP:NPROF C6. I don't see any sign of other notability, in particular, citations look well below WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. The chancellor has a ceremonial post that involves dressing up for degree ceremonies, not an administrative post. The vice-chancellor has the top executive post. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A Vice-chancellor has the top executive post in commonwealth countries. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger and Powerful Karma: Is this like the president and provost of a US university? (The president mostly fundraises, the provost runs things.) For a US college/university of 5000 students or so, I think we'd probably find the president notable and the provost not-necessarily so. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any real equivalent at an American university. Chancellorship of a university is far from being a full-time job, and is held by a figurehead - usually someone very notable in their own field, such as politics or entertainment, but not necessarily an academic. The vice-chancellor has the "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post" as described in WP:PROF. For example, my daughter received her degree from the chancellor of her university, Floella Benjamin, who is very accomplished, but made her name as a children's television presenter rather than an academic, and probably wouldn't have any idea about running a university. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm convinced, at least so far as striking my delete !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC#6: "vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post". The vice-chancellor is the de-facto administrative head of public universities in India. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NACADEMIC#6: Has top academic post and as per "vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post". JaredDaEconomist (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pssses WP:NACADEMIC#6. VocalIndia (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Lawton

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

Fails GNG requirements, lacks coverage CeltJungleSnake (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Featured on many reputed magazines. A quick google search shows plenty of results. Seems an easy pass for WP:GNG. Hypogaearoots (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has covered in The Wall Street Journal [17], CNN [18], Forbes [19], Fortune [20]. Celtsbosom (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 14:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Celtsbosom and Hypogaearoots. Powerful Karma (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 14:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has done some cleanup and improvements to the page as the original author created a promotional piece. I guess it should qualify now as WP:NBUSINESSPERSON as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Strong passage of GNG with coverage in several RS including Forbes, NYTimes, WSJ, Business Insider, CNN, and Fortune to name a few. Hypogaearoots (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per new improvements. Satisfies GNG and NBUSINESSPERSON for notable roles. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, plenty of sources available to meet WP:GNG and a Fortune 500 company CEO with good secondary coverage. GooeyMitch (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies GNG has multiple indepth coverage in reliable sources. Peneplavím (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Upon the Sky

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

Present coverage fails in qualifying GNG CeltJungleSnake (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a series broadcasting on national TV, this has plenty of coverage in the Thai press, though as is usual with Thai entertainment news, a lot of it is PR news. This piece by The Standard features original writing.[21] --Paul_012 (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article has been moved to Fish upon the Sky. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not seem to have a problem as a nationally broadcast series to meet GNG, cf. WP:RPRGM. Sam Sailor 21:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Sam Sailor, a nationally broadcast series which meets GNG. GooeyMitch (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nationally-broadcasted series meets GNG. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magoxy Infra

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

Fails WP:NCORP. There are mighty claims here but not reliable sources to validate those. The first PROD was removed by the user who created the page. The same user has also tried to create another related page. So there is also clear COI. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article setting out a company's wares. Searches, including Indian media searches on the company/founder names, are not finding significant coverage, just occasional company listings. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to pretty clearly fail WP:GNG Dexxtrall (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fail WP:GNG no reliable sources. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has no significant coverage.Webmaster862 (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filatex India

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

Fails WP:NCORP Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom Dexxtrall (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notion of notability. Did not pass WP:NCORP. SunDawn (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom fails GNG. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not Meet WP:GNG and has no significant coverage.Webmaster862 (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. -Hatchens (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vir Bala Aggarwal

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

Fails WP:Academic or WP:GNG. Non-significant awards and hence doesn't qualify for WP:ANYBIO. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Nothing found indicating notability. Kolma8 (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. she fails WP:NPROF, specifically #1 and the textbook that she wrote does not clear #4. --hroest 00:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails GNG and NPROF. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRIVIA: Voices of Feminism

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

This journal does not appear to meet WP:NJOURNALS. Searching its ISSN on Social Sciences Citation Index and Scopus does not turn up any results. As far as I can tell, it is not influential or widely cited enough to meet criteria 2 and 3 of WP:JOURNALCRIT. However, I am not too familiar with the notability standards for academic journals, so I welcome input from other editors. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Since both NJOURNALS and JOURNALCRIT are essays, whether the subject meets them or not isn't particularly relevant. I see no sign that the subject meets the GNG, however, and as a resident of the town in which this one is published (and working for an organization publishing similar periodicals), never having heard of the subject causes me to wonder. Of the two sources in the article that aren't primary, one is a press release (and one, furthermore, nearly two decades old, and actually surfing to the source reveals that it's the webpage of one of TRIVIA's editors) and the other listing only the publication's name, that it is in the "newspapers" category, and the names of four ex-editors.
Beyond that, a glance at the contribution history of the article creator [22] turns up quite a few similar articles, many on obscure, ephemeral feminist publications, lacking any notion of substantive coverage, and often with fannish peacock language. None of the half dozen such articles I looked at could survive AfD, I wager, and several more of the editor's article creations have been moved to draftspace for lack of sourcing. Ravenswing 07:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially a promotional article for a website, claims of notability are not supported by independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a magazine and not really a peer-reviewed academic journal, so NJournals does not apply. Criteria for magazines are even weaker than for journals, so GNG applies, which as Ravenswing explains eloquently, is not met in this case. The other articles mentioned should perhaps be PRODed. --Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, I'm not sure what gave me the impression this was an academic journal. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough citations provided. Peter303x (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 00:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahyar_Tousi

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mahyar Tousi

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

Not enough to meet notability guidelines. (E.G. Guardian article is WP:SPS, election results are trivial, some other articles aren't more than a mere mention etc). There isn't enough here to meet the WP:GNG. Braheemie (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough WP:RS to qualify forWP:GNG Angryskies (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject of article is a high profile political commentator with considerable name recognition. Easily passes WP:N. --RaviC (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing on this is terrible, I don't think there's a single one which passes WP:GNG currently in the article, and I couldn't find any in a cursory WP:BEFORE search. Not impossible he's GNG-notable, but I'd need to see better sources. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject is not noteworthy enough and this article has a long history of being self promotional in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paragon Deku (talk • contribs) 04:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficiently sourced, lacks independence, seems more like a promotional piece than a wiki article. Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements either, small former youtuber (now quit his channel) who clearly does not pass. Does not have widespread name recognition in the UK. For reference, this is not a political attack on MT as I am also a conservative, I just don't think this meets the requirement WP:N. PompeyTheGreat (talk) 18:15, 20 May 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) 04:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A note to the closer, there is some AfD-related discussion on the AfD talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 19:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Looking over the sources used to "reference" this article, the only one that appears to be published in a mainstream publication (the Guardian) is his op-ed about himself, and is thus WP:PRIMARY. Almost all of these are links to various YouTube videos. The rest make mere passing mentions, and in at least one case, no mention of him at all. This is not sufficient independent and/or reliable sourcing for an article, and it rather blatantly fails our requirement for substantial coverage. If this wouldn't remotely pass WP:AFC, it's not suitable for the main space encyclopedia. No one seems to be talking about this individual outside of a few YouTubers. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Avenue Bridge

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

This article on a non-notable subject only cites two sources, both of which only mention the subject in passing. The Rappold source actually focuses on a now-demolished bridge at the same location as the subject of this article. The Mead & Hunt source isn't about the subject of this article; it's an inspection report for a dam that's a mile upstream.

I found one additional source that could strengthen this article: Jeffrey Hess's Historic Highway Bridges in Wisconsin, which is a 1986 state Department of Transportation report on preserving old bridges. The only other sources I could find were government records of routine safety inspections (which exist for practically every bridge and dam) and a couple books for kayakers that mention the bridge as a landmark. Even if this article utilized Hess's report as a source, there isn't wide enough coverage at this time for the bridge to meet the "significant coverage" aspect of the general notability guideline. CoatGuy (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that this and Columbia Mill probably aren't notable enough for their own articles, but could be included elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. I'm just not sure where. SportingFlyer T·C 15:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly Columbia Historic District (Cedarburg, Wisconsin)? The bridge and the mill are both in the immediate area, though neither is technically a contributing property to the NRHP listing. Including this information on that page might help with some of that page's issues as well; it relies almost entirely on one source. CoatGuy (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree it's not a 100% match, but it seems the best match at this point. These articles seem to be a classic case of "the information's good, but there's not enough for a stand-alone." SportingFlyer T·C 16:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I'm not seeing many reliable sources about this (that give significant coverage, etc). Could be possibly merged into Columbia Historic District (Cedarburg, Wisconsin), although take note that this isn't a contributing property. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (partial) to Cedar Creek (Wisconsin)#Bridges, adding some details from this article to that list.Djflem (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Historic Highway Bridges in Wisconsin Has good coverage of this bridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghaynes19 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:34, 7 May 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) 02:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep As per Ghaynes19 seems to have some coverage to satisfy GNG. Peneplavím (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Cultural Research Center

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

Non-notable think tank. The subject has a pretty generic name so my BEFORE turned up plenty of results but none about this. 🌀Locomotive207-talk 🌀 (Formerly Kieran207) 01:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This an extremely weak article about an organization with no obvious claim to WP: NOTABILITY. ABT021 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom fails GNG, not enough good news coverage is available. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Substantially identical to deleted version other than material about his crash and care, which was not reliably sourced and was removed. Fences&Windows 12:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brier

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough sources to establish notability. Google search came up dry NW1223 | Howl at me 01:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NW1223 | Howl at me 01:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was originally voted as "delete" on February 17, 2016 [23]. No new content, source or reason for notable inclusion has surfaced since its deletion to warrant an article. Maineartists (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom not enough sources to showcase notability. Hypogaearoots (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also nominated for Speedy deletion. David notMD (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 17:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Open 88 Contrexéville

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

This has had no independent sourcing for almost a decade, and while I'm not the world's best expert on tennis I think it fails WP:GNG being for a minor tier tennis tournament. SportingFlyer T·C 23:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This tournament meets the guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines as it was a $50,000 ITF tournament. The guidelines state that From 2008 onwards the ITF Women's $50,000–$100,000+ tournaments are notable, which this tournament falls into that bracket. Keroks (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does it pass WP:GNG though? I'm not getting any hits in search results, which is more important than any project guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 15:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for sources covering the tournament and so far I've found [24], but annoyingly I found local coverage for the 2012 event [25] which makes me believe there should be more coverage that isn't immediately findable by simple Google searches. Iffy★Chat -- 11:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Keroks, This tournament meets the guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines, although more sources are needed to improve the article. Hypogaearoots (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the SNG. This is a case where I am willing to use the SNG to assume there are contemporaneous independent news sources; as they are probably in French and not in Google Search I am unable to find them. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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