Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 18	May 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford Wanderers RFC[edit]

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

Non-notable local rugby union club, before search brought up no secondary sources to improve/save the article, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, non-notable rugby union team. Fails both rugby club guidelines and GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Rugbyfan22. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:46, 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 WP:SNOW delete. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 00:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Cricket TV[edit]

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

Promotional concerns and clear WP:NORG fail. SportingFlyer T·C 23:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems promotional. Peacock terms have been used. The creator of the article may have close relation with the subject or being paid in exchange of creating the article. Besides, it fails WP:TVSERIES. I can't really understand how the article passed through the AfC process. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 04:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The promotional language concerns don't sway me as that can be addressed through editing. The lack of significant coverage, however, puts me firmly on the side of delete. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NORG, looks promotional Alex-h (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and overly promotional. StickyWicket (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant NORG fail Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minakshi Mukherjee[edit]

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

BLP of the leader of a party youth wing and unsuccessful election candidate. Does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOL, which includes Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage and specifically in footnote 8, A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists, and sources that were in the article and have since been added to the article: A Minakshi in the battle of Goliaths (The Indian Express, 2021), Minakshi Mukerjee seeks to regain CPI(M)'s lost glory in Nandigram amid clash of titans (YahooNews/PTI, 2021), Meet The 36-Year-Old Up Against Mamata Banerjee, Ex-Aide Suvendu Adhikari (NDTV, 2021), West Bengal Assembly election 2021, Minakshi Mukherjee profile: CPM candidate to battle heavyweights Mamata Banerjee, Suvendu Adhikari (FirstPost, 2021), In Nandigram high decibel battle, a faint cheer for CPM (The Indian Express, 2021). She also has not previously been low-profile (so not WP:BLP1E), e.g. Police and Left youths clash, bandh today (Telegraph India, 2012). Beccaynr (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Beccaynr. Powerful Karma (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Beccaynr stated above.Poppified ^talk 07:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Beccaynr. There is more than standing against the sitting CM of West Bengal. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-elected politician does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. And this is not the platform of increasing Keep votes.GermanKity (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccayner. Their list of sources shows significant press coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By its own terms, WP:NPOL does not require the deletion of articles that pass the WP:GNG. The sources presented by Beccaynr do indeed satisfy the GNG, consisting of thorough profiles instead of routine campaign coverage. And the fact that she wasn't obscure prior to running prevents any WP:BLP1E concerns, as this essay cogently explains. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 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 (withdrawn by nominator, with nobody having expressed a delete opinion). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Production[edit]

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

~~Film company does not meet WP:NCORP- individual films may be notable, but coverage of the company in WP:RS is merely passing mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [1] [2] [3] [4] - Those are all pretty in-depth coverage. That combined with the absolutely huge amount of mentions and the surety of other language sources puts me on the keep side. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I agree, these sources do suggest that the article should be kept. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above sources and nominator withdrawing. Webmaster862 (talk) 00:26, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Church (Stamford, Connecticut)[edit]

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

I don't think this local church meets WP:NORG, WP:NCHURCH, or WP:GNG. Searching turned up a single piece in the Stamford Advocate marked as "local news", but the coverage is largely either non-independent stuff published by either the church itself or its diocese, or is passing mentions that various events are happening here (especially funerals) or mentions in things such as obituaries. I don't think the single Stamford Advocate local news piece (found here) is enough to demonstrate notability. Hog Farm _Talk 20:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 20:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 20:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything other than run-of-the-mill coverage, and the building itself is not on historical registers. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are also Schiavo 1949, pp. 576–578 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSchiavo1949 (help) which give the correct date, 1923 (rather than what was originally in the article), the bishop, and a bit more history. I prefer at least two sources, excluding the church's own stuff, though. That said, https://www.stamfordsacredheart.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Sacred-Heart-Golden-Jubilee_reduced.pdf, which is a copy of a pamphlet from 1973 with a detailed history, is a fair supporting source. Another decent in-depth independent source, especially one covering the subsequent five decades, would put this over the top. There's not enough with these alone, though. Uncle G (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Schiavo, Giovanni Ermenegildo (1949). Italian-American History. Vol. 2. New York: Vigo Press.
Delete a booklet published by the Church itself to celebrate its jubilee and the Church website are not enough to show notability, and the one passing mention in Giovanni Schiabvo's book on Itlaian American history is not enough to show notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 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. (non-admin closure) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of common World War II infantry weapons[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of service rifles by country was closed recently as delete, and this article shares many of its problems, if not more. It contains hundreds of entries, yet only 8 inline citations. While its description of 'mainstream' is a bit vague, there is no ambiguity over the fact that plenty of stuff here is anything but. To name just a few examples, the AVT-40, FG 42, Type 5 rifle, and Mors submachine gun, the last of which had a total of 39 produced, so it is entirely impossible for it to have any claim of mainstream use. There's also the fact this information is already covered on List of German military equipment of World War II, List of Soviet Union military equipment of World War II, List of World War II weapons of the United States, etc. Loafiewa (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than one nation was in the war after all. Category:World War II infantry weapons exist. No reason not having a list since it is far more useful than a category. Dream Focus 20:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but jettison the vague "common" to allay the nominator's main objection. (Apparently the same thing was done with List of common World War II combat vehicles.) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN as there are numerous books such as The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II and Infantry Weapons of World War II. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can see a bit of value in the article although the title definitely needs renaming to move the ambiguity of being "common". Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge -- As a list with most items as blue links, I am not worried about the lack of references, as these would clutter the article. What worries me much more is the number of countries appearing, many of which did not manufacture weapons but were equipped by the allies or the axis powers. Items for UK (and Empire), US, Japan, Germany, and Italy; also Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and France may be useful, but most others not (alternatively split by country). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 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 Withdrawn. Nominator has with withdrawn. Missvain (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slopseller[edit]

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

Unsourced since creation in 2007. Roxy . wooF 19:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a dictionary definition and there’s already an entry for it on Wiktionary. Mccapra (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC. Keep after edits. LizardJr8 (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been expanded substantially with sources by User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. It is no longer a simple dictionary definition. — Goszei (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:HEY. It will be a bias to remove historical information, especially when the reason of sources is satisfied. RV (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wut? -Roxy . wooF 23:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wut is an inappropriate word to use at this portal. My comments are simple to understand—the Heymann Standard. And everyone is agreeing. You know floccinaucinihilipilification. (Oxford dictionary describes floccinaucinihilipilification as “the action or habit of estimating something as worthless”.^[1].
    We have seen it at various pages such as [[5]] Bolt (fabric), and more recently at [6]]Ninon and same at [[7]]Khes. Kindly be careful.RV (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Slop (clothing). The article certainly goes into much more detail than a simple dictionary, and it's a notable type of clothing that is discussed by historians, with examples kept in museums. It was discussed by governments as it's own separate type of clothing for tax rates[8]. It was part of rules and regulations of the US Navy[9] and Australian labor camps[10]. It was kind of a big deal. The article isn't even that poorly written. The topic is notable and has plenty of coverage in reliable sources, the article just has the wrong name. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ May 21, PTI /; 2021; Ist, 21:28. "Floccinaucinihilipilification: Tharoor's latest tongue-twister in friendly banter with KTR | India News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2021-05-22. {{cite web}}: |last2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Keep and move to new title per ScottishFinnishRadish. Mccapra (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If ScottishFinnishRadish cares to look through the page history, he might notice that when I nominated the page, it was a shitty unsourced stub that had three sentences and no refs. Perhaps a kind closer will snow close this as Keep now that some improvements have been made. -Roxy . wooF 23:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Roxy the dog, even without the article having been updated I still would have said keep. A couple minutes revealed more than enough to show it was a notable topic, I will admit that I didn't see that the article was recently expanded when I voted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article content suggests slop trade as the title. Uncle G (talk) 07:33, 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 redirect to Ariana Grande#Relationships. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton Gomez[edit]

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

I had redirected this to Arianna Grande but it was reverted. Individual is not independently notable, all of the sources about him have to do with his marriage to Grande. I recommend that the redirect is restored. ... discospinster _talk 18:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arianna Grande#Relationships Completely non-notable outside who he wed; being in Los Angeles, a real estate agent is going to sell a famous house at least once. Nate • (chatter) 18:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arianna Grande#Relationships Does not meet WP:GNG independently. KidAd • SPEAK 20:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arianna Grande#Relationships - notability is not inherited; subject does not meet WP:NBIO on his own. All but three independent references listed on the page all reference Dalton Gomez according to his relationship with Grande, and the fact that one of the sources is literally titled "Dalton Gomez: Who is Ariana Grande's husband? Mystery surrounds real estate agent who stayed out of spotlight" says quite a lot about his independent notability. (The other three independent sources are not WP:SIGCOV). Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:57, 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. ✗plicit 01:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pietra Wexstun[edit]

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

Also nominating:

Both the band (Hecate's Angels) and the band's frontwoman (Pietra Wexstun) seem to fail WP:MUSICBIO, as I can't find any significant coverage about either. They're associated with notable musician (and Wexstun's husband) Stan Ridgway, but that isn't sufficient. Both articles have been unsourced for many years. Lennart97 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of two articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wasn't able to find any significant coverage while digging. I did see a couple quick blurb reviews in printed sources from the early 2000's, but I didn't have access to actually see what was written and assess if it provided anything towards real notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not find anything to establish WP:GNG nor WP:BAND. I suppose another option could be to redirect Pietra Wexstun to Stan Ridgeway as an WP:Alternative to deletion. Missvain (talk) 18:32, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dragoslav Đukanović[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article is so non-notable that it was deleted on the Serbian Wikipedia. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like the srwiki (Serbian Wikipedia) article was deleted in 2010.[11] I can't find the deletion discussion at srwiki [12] [13] shwiki (Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia) never had an article: [14] ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 00:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Failing GNG doesnt mean deletion if Đukanović meets WP:PROF. The only WP:SIGCOV I can locate with google search, google scholar, google news, and google books is [15], the website of his university. It's quite promotional and lists lots of scientific organisations Đukanović is purportedly a member of. Those organisations usually have very bad or dead websites. On none of the 3 our 4 I checked did I find his name. The subject of this article seems like someone who might warrant SIGCOV (with purportedly all those books published and international scientific association work done) but didn't get this sigcov in online sources. So I see two ways an editor with Serbian(/Serbo-Croatian) language skills could help here: 1) find WP:RSeliable offline sources and cite them 2) The page I linked also states that Đukanović is part of some Serbian national academy group. Perhaps he was made a fellow of a highly selective academy or won some prestigious award, which would mean inclusion under WP:PROF. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 00:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scopus has him on 22 articles with a grand total of 1 citation. Not seeing how he meets NPROF here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Serbian Wiki equivalent is at sr:Нацрт:Dragoslav_Đukanović, i.e. in draft space, where it lingers since 2010. It presents an enormous academical output (and is likely a copy of the professor's CV). On a quick skim, I can't find much international journals among lot of chaff; IDJ is open access and has impact factor of 2.038. No such user (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for digging it up, wow what a draft.... ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 16:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete. Output on Google scholar does not seem so noteworthy in of its own right to warrant inclusion. Daiaespera (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Daiaespera has been blocked as a sockpuppet. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a physicist with a similar name on Daiaespera's Google Scholar link, whose citation counts, while stronger, are still not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. I did at least learn from the search that we should be searching for Djukanovic as well as Dukanovic. Regardless, there's not enough there for WP:PROF#C1, and the academic leadership positions described by the article also do not rise to the level of automatic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. doesnt pass WP:NPROF. --hroest 00:19, 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. The "keep" opinions don't address the lack of reliable sources about (not by) the subject. Sandstein 08:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Napier[edit]

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

Unsourced article. Yes, I can verify that he did indeed translate books. But there are no secondary sources to establish WP:GNG. article was deproded without explanation. Rusf10 (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails to use adequate references to prove notability. Nexus000 (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and productive translator. Large amount of secondary sources in Alan Napier's 2015 memoir Not Just Batman's Butler, published by McFarland Press, for example. If what the deletion supporters are saying is true, then translators like Steven T. Murray should be deleted since they imply that there is no notability for translators of best-selling Scandinavian literature. Why not wipe this whole category: Category:Swedish–English translators? Vogler (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your first argument is based on the fact that his son published a memoir. Is it any surprise to anyone that his son wrote about him in the memoir? WP:GNG requires that sources be "independent of the subject", his son's memoir clearly is not independent. Your second argument is WP:ALLORNOTHING. Maybe there are other articles that should be deleted (or maybe not), but it is irrelevant to this discussion. You have not put forth a valid argument to keep this article.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We misunderstand each other here. To be clear my first argument is based on the fact that he is a notable translator judging by the huge amount of times his works have been mentioned in media of his time. Secondly I mentioned the memoir because it will verify facts that I thought you were disputing, it was not about making an argument. Thirdly I am well aware of WP:ALLORNOTHING, so pardon the rhetorics. If my arguments so far are not enough, do you think that the fact that Burgtheater ("One of the world's most important theater") staged one of his plays makes him notable perhaps? Vogler (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. I've never disputed whether any of this was verifiable. In fact, in my nomination statement I said I could verify that he translated books. The topic passes WP:V, but not everything verifiable is notable. So while his son's book helps verify, it does not provide any notability. The play may make a weak case for notability, but more information is needed. Did he just provide translation for the play or was he also involved with directing or producing it? Was the play itself notable? (not just the theater) Was his son moved involved with the play than he was? The way you cited the sources in the article, it is near impossible determine the answers to these questions. His son is notable, but that notability is not automatically passed on to him.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the translation work, he was also the managing director and designer at the Birmingham Guild of Handicraft for which there is coverage in works such as Jewelry and Metalwork in the Arts and Crafts Tradition and By Hammer and Hand: The Arts and Crafts Movement in Birmingham. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:BIO + WP:GNG, not enough sigcov found which cover himself sufficiently CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Birmingham Guild of Handicraft was a significant member of the Arts and Craft movement and important in the history of the city. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that this article is no longer unsourced, and presently has 32 inline citations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the "inline sources" are a wikilink to a newspaper plus a date - not even an article title. I cannot find any sources about him and his work, just mentions of a book he translated. That is WP:EXIST not WP:GNG. He may indeed be notable but I cannot develop a case that he is, based on what I have found so far. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea what those articles actually are, but they certainly weren't cited properly, giving us no way to verify them. Assuming the articles do exist, my guess would be that they are just book reviews that mention Mr. Napier as the translator, not in depth coverage of himself.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment in every way meets the notability standards mentioned in WP:NOTAB:

As a jeweller and manager of The Birmingham Guild of Handicraft:

”The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.”

As a politician:

”Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.” (Significant press coverage in British media archives, pay for subscription and see for yourself).

As a translator:

”The person's work (or works) has: (c) won significant critical attention.” His translations apparantly received nationwide critical attention. (He was regarded as an important translator and therefore were chosen to translate significant literature instead of less significant translators).

—Vogler (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had to strike your vote, since you've already voted. But there's no proof that his work as a jeweler was particularly notable. And serving on City Council certainly does not pass WP:NPOL. As can be expected there are local newspaper articles that mention him while he was serving, but the same could be said for any member of city council. So it really just comes down to whether he was notable as a translator. The works he translated received attention, but they were notable before he translated them. It is the work itself and its author who are notable. Just finding a book review that mentions that he translated the book is not significant coverage of him.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, but, I'm not convinced the subject passes WP:GNG. I understand the sourcing is mainly print, but, for all we know they are passing mentions. While I don't doubt the important contributions of the Birmingham Guild of Handicraft, I did not know that serving at the organization inherently made you notable. My research brought up little to nothing about the subject, including online pay-to-play newspaper sources. Missvain (talk) 18:36, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amba (film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2012. The plot summary is identical to the one in IMDb, but I cannot tell which is the original and which the copy. WP:BEFORE searches in English and for the Hindi title, अम्बा , turned up nothing independent and in-depth, just the usual collection of listings sites; no reviews at all; I did find a very close paraphrase of the plot summaries already mentioned, at muvyz.com. The parallel articles in Hindi and Newar added nothing. The stars and the composers have well-developed articles, but notability is not WP:INHERITED. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Narky Blert (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Changing vote to Keep based on newly added sources. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: I don't think it can pass GNG or NFILM. Week keep now, based on two reviews. Kolma8 (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources added, notability established, I believe. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Five sources were added to the article on 18 May 2021‎ (UTC). Relisting per these additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Si-woo (actress)[edit]

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

Only a single significant role in a notable production. The second role is of dubious notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The new production she's involved in with Naver appears to also have a significant amount of news coverage of her role in it as the lead, much like the significant coverage from the Sisyphus role. Here's some examples:

이시우 웹드라마 '오늘부터 계약연애' 100만뷰 돌파 '新웹드여신' 등극 (Siwoo Lee's web drama 'Be My Boyfriend' surpassed 1 million views, becoming 'New Webed Goddess') - Star News
이시우, 웹드라마 '오늘부터 계약연애' 주연 캐스팅 "첫 도전, 많은 사랑 부탁" (Si-Woo Lee, cast in the lead role in the web drama 'Be My Boyfriend' "First challenge, ask for a lot of love") - Digital Chosunilbo
이시우, 웹드라마 '오늘부터 계약연애' 여주인공 지나 役 캐스팅 (Siwoo Lee casts Gina, the female protagonist of the web drama 'Be My Boyfriend') - Korea Economic Daily
‘오늘부터 계약연애’ 이시우 “신현승과 케미? 작중 연하지만 실제로 어려 금세 가까워졌다” ('Be My Boyfriend' Lee Si-woo “Shin Hyun-seung and Chemie? It’s young in the story, but it’s really young, so I got close") - Korea Economic Daily
이시우 “오디션&작품 경험 쌓으며 배우 이시우 널리 알리겠다” (I will promote actor Lee Si-woo widely through audition & production experience) - Korea Economic Daily
‘오늘부터 계약연애’ 이시우·신현승·유주, 케미 폭발 대본리딩 현장 공개 ('Be My Boyfriend' Lee Si-woo, Shin Hyun-seung, Yu-ju, chemistry explosion script reading site released) - The Chosun Ilbo

The Google translated titles aren't the best, apologies. But there appears to be significant coverage of both of her roles in the two shows, thereby meeting notability requirements of the WP:GNG and not based on just a single role. Silver seren^C 23:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Supporting User:Silver seren's good work. I am convinced the subject passes GNG. Missvain (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and agree per User:Silver seren; Lee has significant roles in both dramas and passes GNG (and WP:NACTOR#1). Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 11:50, 24 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 AS Moulins. (non-admin closure) Run n Fly (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hector-Rolland Stadium[edit]

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

No indication of notability and fails WP:GNG. The club that plays here has never played at a professional level (only amateur level). I think it is notable to note that I am nominating several articles created by the same editor. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article, like the other two noted by Paul, that was translated from the frwiki to the enwiki. It was notable on the frwiki. Also, it is helpful to the town in question to advertise its football stadiums in case someone wants to rent them for a weekend or so. Endo999 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But the town advertisements does not give notability, just saying. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent article - AS Moulins - as possible search term. Giant Snowman 20:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AS Moulins. Just because this is notable on fr.wiki, doesn't mean it's notable on en.wiki. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AS Moulins - does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AS Moulins per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AS Moulins. Otinflewer (talk) 13:41, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixx[edit]

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

This entity doesn't appear to have ever been notable, and it's been stubbed for over a decade. The web site suggests it's just a marketing company now. A Google search turns up nothing. At the very least, a merge and redirect to the founder's article would work, to preserve the edit history. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is nt supposed to be a super lightly annotated directory of the internet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a one-sentence stub with zero sourcing save for the company's website.TH1980 (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article history shows that the original WP:SPA version did list various industry awards, which content was removed along with promotional material in 2017. However none of these appear to be inherently notable awards and searches are not finding the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. (Regarding a possible merge/redirect to the Van Vandegrift article, as mentioned in the nomination, while that may be an option, I think WP:RS sources about the depth and duration of the association would be needed before adding this into a WP:BLP.) AllyD (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xinghuacun Subdistrict, Hefei[edit]

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

None of the current sourcing meets WP:GEOLAND, was moved to draft in hopes of improvement, to no avail. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can confirm the district exists through plenty of hits on Chinese media and through the Baidu Baike wiki article so this meets WP:GEOLAND. I added a small summary source from the local government running this district, I'm sure there are more if I dug through the news articles. Jumpytoo Talk 18:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND#1 as a populated, legally recognized place. The subject is presumed to be notable. Sun8908 _Talk 16:15, 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. ✗plicit 14:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mbaraza Emmy[edit]

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

Borderline A7/G11 eligible article on a grossly non notable singer who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER and in general lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Thus, a major GNG fail. A before search only turns up hit in use generated and self published unreliable sources which we do not consider reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the GNG; all coverage is either unreliable, insubstantial, or both. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability.--Chuka Chief_talk 15:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rogermx (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no English language news coverage that I can find. Daiaespera (talk) 14:21, 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 Colgate-Palmolive#Brands. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fabuloso[edit]

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

Just another unremarkable cleaning product of an international conglomerate that fails ~~Wikipedia:Notability (products)~~ WP:NPRODUCT and wp:GNG. Article is an uncited stub better served as part of a list of the parent company's many products. My redirect was reverted, but I am still open to that as an outcome. GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Colgate-Palmolive#Brands, essentially per nom, although the correct link is WP:NPRODUCT. Essentially all the independent reviews I ran across are bare-bones ones of this type. The guideline directly states Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion. applying that to this case means redirect. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. GenQuest you may want to strike the link to Wikipedia:Notability (products), a failed proposal, and add the one to WP:NPRODUCT. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. I take exception to the comment here that this is "another unremarkable cleaning product". At least in my area, this product holds its own on the store shelves with Lysol, which is a pretty hefty brand. In fact, because of its variety of scents, there is more likely to be more of Fabuloso than Lysol on the shelves That, of course, is just an aside that has no bearing on the outcome of this nomination. — Maile (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge not just this, most other Colgate-Palmolive products articles. There's an absurd number of articles for their products and most of them are the same as this. 78.152.252.48 (talk) 09:35, 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 01:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DACAPO[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this software is notable. The article has been an unreferenced stub since creation in 2005, there are no comments on the talk page, and the onlydefinitive secondary WP:SIGCOV result was [16]. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - A Google Scholar search for "Quantum Chemistry" and DaCapo shows that a lot of papers USE this software, but they don't COVER it. If there's no secondary coverage of the software itself, but it's getting used... is that notable? What could we base an article on that wouldn't be WP:OR?PianoDan (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks notability and coverage by multiple secondary sources. Cinadon36 08:05, 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 delete. ✗plicit 01:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Daniel Chilcott[edit]

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

No indication of notability. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 19:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chilcott is a former Judge and Law Society of Upper Canada treasurer. Treasurer of the Law Society is a sigificant office. User:martinscriminalcode 4 May 2021 ^[1]
- @Martinscriminalcode: I understand that, however the office itself does not give inherent notability to the person. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 21:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doesn't the Ontario Superior Court of Justice position mean he meets WP:NJUDGE?--- Possibly (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not. It has 300 judges and only covers one province. Compare, for instance, the lowest rank of English judges who are generally regarded as qualifying, the High Court Judges, of whom there are only 105 in the entire country! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://lso.ca/about-lso/osgoode-hall-and-ontario-legal-heritage/collections-and-research/treasurers-and-benchers-of-the-law-society-of-uppe/list-of-law-society-treasurers

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NJUDGE. Sungodtemple (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Judges at this level are not inherently notable and there seems to be no other reason for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ontario Superior Court of Justice is certainly a level of judgeship at which a person could be includable if they actually had adequate reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, but it is not "inherently" notable enough to entitle him to an automatic notability freebie on primary sourcing alone. And no, even being treasurer of the law society still isn't "inherently" notable enough to waive our sourcing rules either. Notability is not measured in terms of the things the article says, it's measured in terms of the quality, depth and reliability of the sourcing that can or can't be shown to support the things it says. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Mantera's Party Dream[edit]

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

This was nominated in 2015 (by a now blocked sock) but it got no discussion so it was closed as Keep. The notable record label doesn't even list this band on their website. They fail WP:NBAND and haven't produced anything since 2009., HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of the articles from RS (newspapers, in this case, and there are surprisingly a lot) are along the lines of "they're wacky they're comin' to town check 'em out"-type blurbs, most (but not all) just a few sentences. Still, it produces a cumulative effect, and there are some longer things in Spin, Lansing State Journal, The Post and Courier... And they really were on Fat Possum, for what that's worth. In the interest of full disclosure, I laughed when I saw the answers.com "reference". Caro7200 (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:12, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they have a staff written bio at AllMusic here together with an album review linked in the AllMusic discography section as well as coverage in Spin, Lansing State Journal others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, it doesn't matter how long a band existed or when they released their last album - that is not a reason for AfD. Article might need some work, but, the band passes WP:GNG. Their shows have been previewed in the Washington Post[17] and featured in Interview[18] among many more. Missvain (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per above evidence of further notability. Carbrera (talk) 18:53, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lollipop Lust Kill[edit]

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

Non-notable band, does not meet WP:BAND notability requirements. The previous discussion which resulted in keeping the article used arguments like "they have three albums" and "they went on a tour", which would not be acceptable under our current guidelines.Rusf10 (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cursory search reveals at least a mention in this article and a solid several mentions in contemporary magazines, including a review dedicated to them. jp×g 02:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as AllMusic a staff written AllMusic bio, coverage in The Toledo Blade here, CMJ here and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm convinced they pass GNG. That includes what Atlantic306 presented as well as additional coverage from the St. Cloud Times[19], the El Paso Times[20], The Morning Call[21], Blabbermouth[22], The Michigan Daily[23], and others. I think we'd find a lot of offlines in free press papers, too, if we could find them. Missvain (talk) 18:32, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Day[edit]

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

last afd closed as keep because "there are sources out there". of course, like all closed afds of this nature, there were no sources out there. Fails WP:GNG. versacespace leave a message! 12:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. versacespace leave a message! 12:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge There are already sources cited in the article. Peter James (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
not to bludgeon but none of those are significant coverage. versacespaceleave a message! 22:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's all there is, it can still be merged to Souvlaki (album), as there is a version with Blue Day as a second CD. Peter James (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources in the article seem reliable, including sources 1 and 4. I also found news about its re-release on vinyl. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. Article just needs to be beefed up. You also might find some sourcing via Google Books. Missvain (talk) 20:54, 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 delete. ✗plicit 01:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilesh (writer)[edit]

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

Non notable writer who does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The awards won appear minor ones and sourced to self-pub. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Hindi Wiki article also has no sources and should be deleted. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Powerful Karma (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed notability .Darktaste (talk) 12:52, 24 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) 13:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Montessori De Manila[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's zero references in the article and all I could find is a couple of name drops in school directories and research paper. Nothing in-depth that directly discusses the school though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:48, 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) 13:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Light of Life Christian School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to show schools are notable we need multiple indepdent sources which are lacking here. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link farm to websites.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:50, 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 redirect to Philippine Women's University. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Abad Santos Memorial School Quezon City[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Philippine Women's University. I agree that there are insufficient sources for this school to pass the WP:GNG. Since it is apparently a branch of this university, a selective merge to the university's article (which already discusses it) seems to be an acceptable alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect The sources are clearly lacking and the article is a OR/PROMOTION mess. So there's zero reason to keep it. I don't think there's anything worth merging either. There's no point in making the Philippine Women's University have badly referenced OR/PROMOTION in it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 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. ✗plicit 11:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orthofx[edit]

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

Dental startup founded in 2017, raised 17 million dollars to date. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Powerful Karma (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is press releases, their rewrites, and so on. The usual use of Wikipedia to rise the company's profile (i.e. advertising). WP:CORPSPAM, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Babu[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL nor GNG. He is the youth-wing leader of a minor political party (holding 3 out of 543 seats in lower house of India), which does not confer notability. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. External Links section is a trainwreck! MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This article is in the WP:POLITICIAN category of the Wikipedia guidelines It seems that. With only 3 seats in the Indian House, it will not be a political party. The party is a major component of the Assembly in the South Indian states of Kerala & Tamil Nadu. Now of the youth wing (Muslim Youth League) of the National Party And office as National General Secretary He is also a former National Vice President. As such, this article is a public speaker and can be considered in that category as well User:Msp7com 04:21,19 May 2021 (UTC)
Babu does not and did not hold a national or state-level elected position. Holding positions within the minor political party itself (as opposed to being elected in national or state elections) does not satisfy NPOL.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a person elected by the general public, but the office base of the National Youth Party, the political party with a seat in the National House. The party committee selects for this category, This person is currently He is the National General Secretary of the Muslim Youth League, the youth party / organization of the Indian Union Muslim League User:Msp7com 05:12,19 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NPOL Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Powerful Karma (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thi not a Just being an elected local official, and elected candidate ^[1] for political office So this Fixed in the WP: NPOL category Msp7com 09:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This person can be considered politically WP:NPOL notable as well as a lawyer ^[2]^[3].^[4] Msp7com 11:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One editor, one !vote. !Voted above.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not delete , keep this article, because this recently improved.check again the WP:NPOL quality from Faisal Babu. Msp7com 04:22, 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 WP:SNOW delete. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 21:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Radziwon[edit]

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

Lower level American player, fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer T·C 09:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks non-routine coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable footballer. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets none of our inclusion guidelines at all Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:22, 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 Jonathan Barnett (sports agent). Closing this one early based on a growing, WP:SNOW redirect consensus. Missvain (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ICM Stellar Sports[edit]

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

Sports agency does not meet WP:NCORP- sources consist of WP:ROUTINE coverage, such as the buyout. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jonathan Barnett (sports agent) as possible search term. Giant Snowman 20:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jonathan Barnett (sports agent) as an WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jonathan Barnett (sports agent). Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What they said Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jonathan Barnett (sports agent) is a cogent move.--Mvqr (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jonathan Barnett (sports agent) as per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:23, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Round Mountain (Washington County, Missouri)[edit]

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

Short mountain that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng. Although it is indeed a valuable piece of information that "Round Mountain was so named because its form is round".. Geschichte (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it may be round, but is it a mountain? Fails WP:GEOLAND. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GEOLAND. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only facts are sourced to GNIS, which isn't to be trusted for anything other than spelling, and to Ramsay. Ramsay's source is hdl:10355/82581, and its source is an oral history by someone who is a "Dr." and likely not one of geography. Just as in the other similar AFD discussions today, I can find nothing else. This is not notable. Uncle G (talk) 21:42, 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. ✗plicit 11:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hill, Missouri[edit]

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

Short hill that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only facts are sourced to GNIS, which isn't to be trusted for anything other than spelling, and to Ramsay. Ramsay's source is hdl:10355/82581, which in turn is sourced to an oral history from an assistant postmaster, giving a fairly trite factoid anyway. I cannot find any other documentation for this. This is not notable. Uncle G (talk) 21:26, 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. ✗plicit 11:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruble Mountain[edit]

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

Short hill that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng. Geschichte (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only facts are sourced to GNIS, which isn't to be trusted for anything other than spelling, and to Ramsay. Ramsay's source is hdl:10355/82581, and its source is an oral history by someone whose credentials are not supplied and whose full name is not given. I can find nothing else. This is not notable. Uncle G (talk) 21:34, 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. ✗plicit 01:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless (2013 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. This was a TV pilot that was filmed (for ABC) but not picked up[24] - an extremely common occurrence in TV. Never aired anywhere, despite article implying it did in 2013. Coverage is routine for pilot production. DoubleCross (‡) 16:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete at best due to the amount of articles published in early 2013. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The main purpose for this article was to disambiguate this pilot from the pilot to the 2014 TV series whose article is located at Reckless (TV series) because that is not the same thing and the two titles and release years are similar enough that they are often confused (as they were in the very first edit to the article itself). I would ideally like to keep it for that reason. However, if this article for the 2013 pilot film indeed ends up being deleted, please place a redirect to Martin Campbell instead of Reckless (TV series) in order to keep the two pilots distinguished from each other. --Nicholas0 (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found some coverage about the production, but it all seems to have been released during a very short period of time in early 2013. Most of the coverage are announcements that this or that person were hired to star in the production, but there's not really anything about the production itself to show that it was particularly noteworthy. It doesn't seem to have ever released, which isn't uncommon for failed pilots.

I also have to question the term "film" to describe the pilot given that the coverage for it doesn't describe it as anything other than a pilot. While some pilots are made to be more or less standalone films (the better to market them later if the series isn't picked up), this isn't always the case. The only outlets describing it as a film are the IMDb page, this Wikipedia article, and other sites that can't really be used to establish claims of this being a film. For all we know, this could have been filmed as a straightforward TV episode. For example, the Unaired Buffy the Vampire Slayer pilot was shot as a TV episode, rather than a film. Barring RS that describe it as a TV film, we should only use the term "pilot". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that the existence of a notable show doesn't mean that this should have a redirect or hatnote. The coverage and average views are so fairly minor that I don't think that there's really much risk of confusion or a need for an article to prevent confusion. I don't really think that there are people searching this out and if this is a huge concern, then this could be summed up in maybe a sentence in the director's article, but I'd like to see some evidence of need for that first. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pilot, didn't make the series. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never picked up, didn't air as a film, no article. Nate • (chatter) 19:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails NFF. Kolma8 (talk) 16:53, 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. ✗plicit 02:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe Mann[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor, hasn't played significant roles in multiple notable films, fail of WP:NACTOR. nearlyevil 665 15:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 15:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. No references available in a Google search. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe he is notable enough as Wikipedia only requires the following

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. He has the first one somewhat, he has a significant role in a significant movie (You Can't Kill Stephen King) which is significant as it has a Wikipedia article, he has also played roles in two other notable movies. While you may say that he played insignificant roles, it is quite vague as to what is significant or not. The second one is more difficult however his youtube channel has over one thousand subscribers, again Wikipedia is somewhat vague on this. The third is also harder however not in this article but he is a CEO of a non profit dedicated to acting and motivation. Googling him you will find a fair amount of information, and hey there are people on Wikipedia for doing much less. 18:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC) - Mikaellacas1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaellacas1 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: To address your points one by one:

1) There is nothing to demonstrate he has played significant role in multiple notable films. 2) Number of youtube subscribers is irrelevant to the purpose of demonstrating a cult following. Even if it were the case, 1000+ subscribers falls short of being anywhere near of having a huge fan following 3) Him being a CEO of an organization, even if the organization were notable (which is not the case), would be irrelevan t.See WP:NOTINHERITED.

As for your point about other articles passing with less references, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. nearlyevil 665 18:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to quote IMDB: "Dr. Monroe Mann, PhD, Esq, MBA, LLM, ME is the definition of a modern renaissance man(n). He is not only a professional actor and filmmaker, but he is also the author of 9 published books; a NY entertainment attorney; a rock musician and singer; a motivational speaker; an improv and standup comedian; and the recipient of a PhD in psychology, an MBA in finance, a masters in entrepreneurship, a masters in law, and a BA from Franklin University in Switzerland. He is also a proud Iraq war veteran, nominated for a bronze star for his work in Iraq as an intelligence officer, a combat patrol leader, a combat patrol navigator, and a trainer of the 4th Iraqi army. He speaks French, Chinese, Italian, and English, and is the founder of the 501(c)(3) not-for-profit Break Diving, Inc., through which he helps others find their calling, study languages, pursue showbiz, and make new friends from around the world. He has lived in many places worldwide, including a year in China, two years in Switzerland, half a year in France, a year in the middle east, and many months in various states around the USA." And he's not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You Can't Kill Stephen King (his sole reasonable credit), but you can kill this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 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. ✗plicit 02:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barclay Fox[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Fails WP:GNG, most of the sources are Fox family journals or genealogy-type references. Penale52 (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't appear to be enough independent coverage of the subject to establish notability. The most significant coverage is from his own journal, which is obviously a primary source. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retain, please I have added a section on Barclay Fox's visit to Ireland during the Great Famine. ODNB's entry for his father and his sister, Caroline make more sense with this companion piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernon39 (talk • contribs) 2021-05-17T11:51:27 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTGENEALOGY Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe there are more sources offline, but, a primary source as the main source and not much else offered up isn't enough to convince me this subject passes our WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 18:34, 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. Missvain (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 European U23 Wrestling Championships – Men's Freestyle 57 kg[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be enough notability for the individual events at this U23 championship to have separate articles. There will be some routine coverage (hopefully), but that's about it (e.g. for this event, all I could find was this). An article about the championship, listing the medalists per event, seems more than enough. Fram (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merge to 2021 European U23 Wrestling Championship, not really worthy of a split, but there are at least some sources here not on the main article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor has since the start of this AfD created two new, similar articles, which I have now added to this AfD. Also nominated are

2021 European U23 Wrestling Championships – Men's Freestyle 97 kg
2021 European U23 Wrestling Championships – Men's Freestyle 125 kg

I'll add others as well if they would be created. Fram (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that for U23 we should not have individual competition pages. - Simeon (talk) 11:54, 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) Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

François Roche[edit]

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

Per several discussions on the talk page. Subject is WP:NPF, and the few sources that are not self published appear unrelated to subject's notability. As pointed out by Sionk, article reads like a CV and source credibility is questionable at best. Babegriev (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babegriev (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comments by what appears to be a block-evading IP (and replies)

- A more than 15 years ago wiki page requested for Deletion. Meaning some people woke up on the situation. After checking the argue, it seems a Portrait was modified from Francois Roche LGBT avatar to francois Roche LGBT lecture at Bangkok Art Biennale (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K15mXrtybAw&t=322s) which has been immediately removed by Babegriev for reasons which are not clear. Do we face a kind of Homophobia, or LGBT Phobia as somebody complained. Perhaps not. So after a kind of words with Babegriev which could be understood as a reaction against this gender discrimination, the reaction of Babegriev was to request a deletion. With all respect with wikipedia contributors, it seems we are facing an undergraduate immature reaction. Are the People doing legal studies able to censure or react strangely with gender claiming in artistic posture? Yes, obviously, everybody is free in Massachussets of his/her own moral commitments. Nevertheless is this kind of ambiguous reaction (i don t say discrimination) a plausible and respectable attitude for a wikipedia contributor. This is a question to ask at the top decision-making levels. This case is, in fact, more the case of Babegriev's possible overridding than Francois Roche himself. But as a young contributor, we can give him this right to make personnal mistakes. To repeat it would be, on the other hand, a reason for exclusion.

In re the unsigned comment above, while this article is not new, it is part of the ever-changing nature of Wikipedia (e.g. WP:CCC) that articles which do not meet the notability guidelines be brought up for discussion on AfD, regardless of their tenure on the encyclopedia (in this particular case ~11 years, created on 23 March 2010). I feel obliged to address the fact that I had nominated this article after reviewing the several discussions on the talk page regarding notability, and entirely irrespective of Roche's LGBTQ identity. I was actually surprised that the page did not have any link to the WikiProject LGBT portal, nor was it associated at all with the project, provided how important identity is to the article's subject. Regardless, as pointed out in my original submission, and by other contributors on the Roche talk page, Roche does not seem to meet the WP:BASIC notability criteria provided the number of reliable sources included in the article. I would be more than happy to address or discuss any additional concerns related to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding article deletion and/or notability, provided that they are the basis for this AfD. As a matter of full disclosure, if the above contribution was left by the same contributor(s) who left this edit and this edit on my talk page, I will ask that discourse remain civil for the sake of the due process which this article and this discussion deserve. Babegriev (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-It s becoming a personnal attack, unlegitimated. Babegriev wants and accepts a community of LGBT only in the street for a gay pride...with music and clownery. Is he registered himself as member of the white anerican heterosexual to justify his gender. Again and again immaturity and discrimination seems the way he personnaly attacks this person. Did he read J. Butler or Paul Preciado about the Fugitve gender, in the crack of revendication, in the crack of gender which don t need to claim a clear identity, and blur the belonging. Of course not. We are now facing what seems a white male heterosexual american reacting abusively and involved in wikipedia contribution. On the notability...10 Venices Biennale of Architecture of new-territories with S/he and Francois Roche seems enough. S/he, the transgender of FR is born digitally in 93-99, at a time Babegriev was not even existing. The historical revisionism and discrimination have no place on wikipedia.

To the unsigned comment: It is entirely inappropriate for me to respond to any further WP:PA, which is beyond the scope of this AfD. With respect to "10 Venices Biennale", per WP:ARCHITECT, the question would be on the basis of the 4th criterion, specifically 4b, "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition." My concern is with the "substantial" portion of this. Looking at this source from the article regarding the 2004 METAMORPH exhibition, the source lists roughly 200 international contributors to the exhibition. Likewise, the 2004 section of the Venice Biennale of Architecture article highlights 12 featured individuals/exhibits at the exhibition, of which neither New Territories, R & Sie, nor Francois Roche was included. Just as a notable film would not be able to become notable without the contributions of countless non-notable contributors (acting extras, technicians, crew members, etc.) so it appears the same case with this exhibition. While Roche's contributions were important in their own right as part of the larger picture of the exhibition's notoriety, they do not constitute a "substantial part" of the Biennale and therefore would fail WP:ARCHITECT. This applies to the other years of contributions at the Venice Biennale as there are no RS to indicate that Roche's contributions were of a substantial nature. As an additional note, after this comment, WP:CRUFT is appearing more evident as both the primary rationale for keeping this article (thus far) and as the basis of the article's contents.Babegriev (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to talk with so much bad faith. For this architect or artist ... just few invitations for your apertizer : 1996 Venise Biennale French Pavillon 40 contributors / 2000 Venise International pavillon Less Aesthetics, More Ethics and French Pavillon (5 contributor) / 2004 Metamorph yes / 2008 Venice International Pavillon 'architecture beyond building" / 2010 venice International pavillon "People meet in architecture" and so on...+ solo exhibition Modern Art Paris + ...+... / After LGBT discrimination from we assist to a strange degree of bad faith... Could you stop this game Babegriev. Why should i defend this person to some body like you ? Ignorant of architecture and art scene. We should complain officially to Wikipedia for your LGBT white male attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.204.247.219 (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I think the WP:ADHOM arguments have already been made more than clear, albeit in an inappropriate venue and being beyond the scope of this AfD discussion. To address the provided list, I don't believe it would be controversial to apply WP:ARBITRARY here, provided that the core notability issues pertaining to WP:ARCHITECT (substantial contributions) have remained entirely unaddressed. Babegriev (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A portrait of 15 years ago which has been widely accepted after some controversy is now rejected by somebody who never contributed to art or architecture, any gender case, any intellectual debate. We ask officially to question the impatiality and the maturity of Babegriev, facing his deep motivation, which appears a gender sexism and discrimination, at the origin of this personal cabal...just because he was caught with his hand in the bag, in flagrante delicto of erasing an LGBT portrait at the place of digital avatar. Asking to this architect, artist a proof of LGBT member card ? for a character existing since 1999, 20 years ago. We ask to wikipedia the revocation of Babegriev for inapropriate motivation which are sweating in his demand. The notability is easily proved and became an alibi. Please Babegriev don t take it personnaly, we just condamn your attitude but respect your person.

Entirely WP:ADHOM and beyond the scope of this discussion. Babegriev (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to include WP:ARTICLEAGE with respect to the age of content. Whether the article was written today, or is the oldest on Wikipedia, all are subject to review pursuant content guidelines, including WP:N, and deletion per WP:XFD. If we are looking at the same talk page, I am not convinced that a consensus has been reached. Terminated discussion from frustration or staleness do not imply content agreements. However, I would be more than happy to discuss the validity of prior consensuses, if any exist. Babegriev (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus... between a white masculine massachusset heterosexual american and a dike lesbian transgender fugitive.... it s the same between AltRight and Benny Sanders... Impossible desire...of negociation and consensus.... you create a vain battle... i hope you reach another "Plateaux" of consciousness /// sincerely... Top moderators validated this portrait...against people similar than you...You should find the archives. On the side, a real kind advice...don t erase an LGBT portrait again as what you did...Don t ask a yellow star or a pink star to LGBT to prove their belonging. It already happened, and you are deeply touching and walking in the goldwin point. Nevertheless no hate...just sadness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.204.146.128 (talk • contribs)

"You should find the archives." I'm not sure which archives you are referring to. As I mentioned above, I have looked through the talk page for this article and attempted to find any other related discussions and I have yet to find a solid consensus. If you are able to find it, by all means WP:PROVEIT. Moreover, I hope to clarify that I'm not talking about a consensus between you and I specifically, I'm referring to WP:CONSENSUS, a Wikipedia policy and specific term related to how conclusions are drawn on Wikipedia. The specific conversation on the talk page I am referring to is the discussion here, which does not end in a definitive consensus. I will take this opportunity to raise additional WP:NPOV concerns turning up from the discussion Talk:Francois Roche#Neutrality problems with the main contributors. Notwithstanding the potential issues with WP:SOCKPUPPET, this raises an additional concern for whether this article should be kept on Wikipedia. If NPOV were the only issue, I would argue for draftifying, however, combined with WP:N, WP:DP is likely the most sensible option. Babegriev (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear , you did a political and sexism error. It s now your problem to find the way to avoid too much damage on your own status. We don't have to argue with white caucasian male sexist. You are one of the symptom of America, it is now to you the repair the prejudice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.204.246.92 (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Seems a big huricane in a water glass. It s clear that motivation of Babegriev appears unclear and are directly motivated to create a prejudice, a witch hunt requesting to the portrait to be declared as LGBT, with a Pink triangle (not star). Why Babegriev could use an kind of impunity to declare his evident sexism and homophobia seems to be the main point of a dispute between those two people. The performative cynicism is illusionary dead with the Trump rejection. The flame is still surviving in USA and what is more surprising within wikipedia contributor. To erase a LGBT portrait is effectivelly in the time of now a direct discrimination, even an offense. It s time to close this controversy and erase this exchange of delation...for the moral salvation and quietness of Babegriev.[reply]

The entirely speculative (and, less importantly, inaccurate) assumptions of my intentions with this AFD and personal moral character are completely immaterial to this discussion. I have referenced several deletion-related policies and guidelines above for the sake of argument, none of which have been refuted to the extent which those policies are employed. Instead, the same WP:ADHOM arguments have been reiterated ad nauseum. The argument that an article should be kept on the basis of a nominator's personal character (assumed or otherwise) is grossly fallacious. Babegriev (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC) - (Signature added after post on 02:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]

*Keep and complain a request of official arbitration as been launched for sexism and homophobia to wikipedia. It is not innocent that the portrait lgbt has been erased today on wikicommon, a portrait which was existing since 10 years. The personnal attack of Babegriev on the lgbt aspect of the character requesting his-her card member or pink triangle should not be tolerated on wikipedia. The notability is high and not the reason of this request of delation. If we check history this portrait has been already protected by arbitration in 2014, for the same hidden reason. For usa promotion>> he was the editor of LOG#25 https://www.amazon.com/Log-25-Francois-Roche/dp/0983649138 among so many thing.

*Keep Some books / LOG25 tinyurl.com/yf9dnskw // Log22 tinyurl.com/yhbscgrt // Log44 tinyurl.com/ydj2t7jj // Monography BiennaleVenise2018 tinyurl.com/yfvwjlk2 // book essay on his work tinyurl.com/yg6jfvnu // Monography bioreboot princeton press tinyurl.com/yk4uv44f // Monography corrupted Biotopes tinyurl.com/yesrkx5e // Article mousse mag NYc tinyurl.com/yg46vscb // Portrait in Liberation news paper tinyurl.com/yzop3lhw // and a second one tinyurl.com/ye9368v5 // listing among minimum 100 others monographies, books, essay, articles in Usa, China, Korea, Japan, and Europe. It tooks 5 mn to find those references. *Main solo exhibitions: MAM paris and 2 book tinyurl.com/yg3s2pmc /// solo Laboratoire http://www.mouvement.net/pdf/TAP_Une_architecture_des_humeurs.pdf /// solo Frac Centre tinyurl.com/yfomphlg ///Why so much intentional bad faith or prosecution on the way this architect or artist should be ignored. We could critic his or her attitude and work, yes and desagree on the permanent provocation or polemic, they, himself and his avatar are creating (in fact visible in this debate). But it does'nt seems a justified motivation for delation, erasing, disqualification. A pending question : Why the portrait of transgender from him or her has been erased from wiki page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.204.197.55 (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs input by other people.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ARCHITECT and WP:ARTIST despite the walls of text from Captain Haddock above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC) *Delete fails from captain Havrock not Haddock / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Harlock *Delete fails / no problem for WP:ARCHITECT and WP:ARTIST but we could understand that in the normalization of the way to be NOW [reply]

an artist or an architect...this pseudo trans-gender doesnt fit with white globalized bourgeoisie...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealismFiction (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

~~Keep - perhaps TNT and write as a stub~~ - I'm not sure how to proceed with this, but, the subject is notable. They pass WP:ARTIST. Their work is held in the collection of SFMOMA [25] and their work under their moniker "New-Territories (R&Sie(n) / [eIf/bʌt/c])" has been exhibited at Pompidou, Tate Modern, Barbican, and the Venice Biennial.[26] Their work has been profiled in the New York Times[27], ARTFORUM[28], Icon[29], and this book edited by Etienne Turpin. They have had work published in Log[30]. They are the subject of a book[31]. Despite the treatment of the suspected sock, who I believe may be the assistant to the architect, the subject is notable and merits inclusion in Wikipedia - just not in its current condition article wise. Missvain (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that Roche is French, so I'm sure French and non-English sources will help further establish notability. Missvain (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While retaining concerns relating to substance of contributions to other exhibits, I cannot argue with the RS for inclusion in SFMOMA's permanent collection (which should be added to the article), and WP:BASIC coverage. I agree TNT/stub would be reasonable, or perhaps draftifying until content is encyclopedic. Babegriev (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they qualify under WP:ARTIST - their work is held in a notable collection and their work has been exhibited at major museums. They qualify. We just need to get the COI editor taken care of! Missvain (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Missvain. Definitely needs some cleanup, though I don't think TNT is the right answer. The article gets a fair amount of traffic, averages a couple hundred hits a month which is better than most obscure artists, so people are definitely looking for this fellow. I threw some cleanup tags on and did some fixing up. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I created a new draft of the article - Draft:François Roche - that I'm working on. Just the basics. Missvain (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Alexandermcnabb so he can take a look perhaps and reconsider/reexamine his !vote. {{smiley}] Missvain (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to strike as Missvain has taken the draft under her wing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article subject - who happened to be the one making all those redacted edits, etc - has reached out to me via email. I explained that Wikipedia is written neutrally, in a boring manner, by volunteers not by article subjects. They expressed displeasure with my draft. I told them - either you get a Wikipedia article and it's written how we write them, or, you don't. At this point, I am going to ask the closing admin to TNT/delete the article in its current state and I'm going to let the draft sit in draft for the time being. Frankly, closing this and deleting the current article might save everyone a touch of grief so we can let things calm down before moving the draft to the mainspace - or not (if the artist comes back saying no I do not want the article then I am fine with letting it with draft forever until someone else comes along and tries to write an article). Does that make sense? Oy vey. Missvain (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also got an email from them with some uhhh...choice words about MissVains version, but I fail to see the issue. I think just replacing the article with that version is fine, I am not as much a fan as TNTing as I think it might fall through the cracks. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this the Drama Llama of which you speak, Missvain??? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep? I have to connect this to some part of the world I know, and the extensive visiting professorships would seem to show notability. . I am as always very strongly opposed to deleting an article on request of the subject unless there's a true BLP problem. In any case, artists are not NPOV interpreters of their own work, though we would include any published statement of their intent. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability looks to be there, so the question is what to do about the current version of the article. At this point, I'm torn between just "keep and clean up", kicking the problem to the talk page, where one of many solutions is to replace it with Missvain's version as a starting point, and "replace with Missvain's version as a starting point", which can obviously still be edited and changes proposed on the talk page if the subject has objections to it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it passes notability, the sources are available (internationally), but I’m not sure if draftifying is the best option. I’m more inclined to encourage CE by inviting experts to collaborate. Perhaps requesting help from relative projects would help? --Atsme 💬 📧 09:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atsme - We'd just copy and paste my draft over the current version. Draft:François Roche Missvain (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe we can convince User:Babegriev to withdraw their AfD and then we'll just copy and paste my draft over the current version? I have a feeling this AfD is going to sit open forever because another closer won't be willing to deal with it, which is often the case for more complicated things (and sadly I can't close it unless someone withdraws). Missvain (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain: Could not have foreseen this becoming as complicated as it has. I have no objections to a withdrawal provided the draft replaces the current mainspace article, and page protection is retained thru the current expiration, given the observed COI DE. Thank you (all) for putting in the effort to save this article, even in spite of the colorful contributor conduct. Babegriev (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator -- Per above. NPOV issues addressed in draft; notability established. No need to clog the closer backlog. Babegriev (talk) 07:25, 27 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 Leggett, California. czar 05:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Leggett, California[edit]

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

This is labelled, in a physical feature font, as "Leggett Valley". at least until the highway came through and obliterated most of what was there, at which point the topos start using the titular label in a placename font. What's there is a few random, seemingly unrelated houses and buildings, which hasn't changed appreciably over the years since the interchange was constructed. It doesn't appear that anyone thinks or thought of this as a distinct town from Leggett proper. Mangoe (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect. No post office. Newspapers.com had one trivial article (about how US 101 was built there) along with some trivial mentions in passing. GBooks had some trivial hits. JStor has hits for a pueblo in New Mexico. As this locale has no legal recognition and the coverage is sparse and trivial, neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND are met. Cxbrx (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone did.
Several hundred people live around the base of Red Mountain in the communities of Cummings, South Leggett, Leggett, and the intervening areas.
— Red Mountains Wilderness Study Area (WSA), Arcata Resource Area, Preliminary Wilderness Recommendation: Environmental Impact Statement. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1988.

The Leggett area includes the communities of Leggett and South Leggett and is located in the northwest part of the county along the South Fork of the Eel River (fig.1). This area is occupied by a few hundred residents living in Leggett and South Leggett and in the hills surrounding these communities.
— Water-resources Investigations Report: 1983–1994. United States Geological Survey. 1986.
This is otherwise an almost entirely undocumented community, from what I can find. Uncle G (talk)
This suggests it may be related to the early history of Leggett. Hog Farm _Talk 16:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Leggett, California. Merge anything, if anything of worth, and redirect per alternatives to deletion. South Leggett doesn't technically exist. I have been to Leggett many times and trust me, there is no South Leggett that would be anything that would merit GEO or GNG. I even have an acquaintance that lives on the "south side" of Leggett and they don't even say "I live in South Leggett." Missvain (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, merge or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my position above to Redirect. Merge or Delete would also be fine with me. Uncle G mentioned two references from the BLM and USGS that mention South Leggett. My WP:OR conjecture from reading other BLM and USGS documents is that the authors looked at the GNIS database and decided to include South Leggett. Cxbrx (talk) 18:27, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York[edit]

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

Notability of this list has been questioned several times, recently recreated from a redirect. I don't see this as a likely search term either, so we don't need the redirect in any case. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of board members. Polyamorph (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I considered WP:ATD. It wouldn't exactly be appropriate on the page on University and this is really something that belongs on their website, therefore per WP:NOTAWEBHOST, as well as NOTADIRCTORY raised by the nom, I support deletion. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In many circumstances "Trustees of Columbia University" is just a circumlocution for the university itself, at its highest administrative levels. But I think the position of the trustees themselves within the university's governance should be a notable topic, to the extent that what they do reflects how they are composed and not just the university they administer. Anyone who has interacted with Columbia and had to write out the whole phrase "Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York" must have wondered exactly who the trustees are and why we can't just write "Columbia University", so I think the topic is encyclopedic and of interest. And I think the embedded lists of current and notable trustees (but not all trustees) are the right level of detail. The search for in-depth coverage is made difficult, not because it is missing, but because there are so many documents that merely mention the trustees in passing rather than providing any useful detail about them, and by the fact that the institution most likely to publish things about Columbia University is Columbia University. Nevertheless there is significant historical material on them in the book Stand, Columbia: A History of Columbia University (of course, published by Columbia University Press, but I think reliable despite that). "The Role of the Trustees of Columbia University" (1957) is again published by Columbia but highly relevant. It's Better to Build Up: Post-'68 Governance at Columbia (again, Columbia University Press), doi:10.7312/cron18274-062 also looks likely to be relevant. A dubiously-reliable but in-depth recent source is this article on the World Socialist Web Site. And the trustees themselves played a significant role in the James McKeen Cattell dismissal controversy, which arguably led to the modern tenure system, as well as in the repression of protests in the late 1960s (as described in Harlem vs. Columbia University: Black Student Power in the Late 1960s, finally a source not published by Columbia itself). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I added two more independent sources to the article: A New York Times story on the election of the first woman to chair the trustees (or any of the governing boards of the Ivies) in 1989, and one on how the trustees ran the Pulitzer Prizes until 1975. I also found another New York Times story from 1969 about an (ineffectual) conservative student lawsuit attempting to replace the trustees: [32]. However, I do not have access to enough of this story to use it as a source in the article. Maybe someone who does might want to add it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also expanded the article with a "controversies" section including some of the independent sources mentioned above. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete Every university has a board of trustees that is integral to its growth and history, but it's a bit too directory and unencyclopedic to me to list them in their own article (we don't typically list members of corporate boards of directors either). History of Columbia University would be a great place for those books. Reywas92^Talk 17:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most peer institutions have similar articles to this one: see President and Fellows of Harvard College, Harvard Board of Overseers, Yale Corporation, Trustees of Princeton University, Cornell University Board of Trustees, and Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College. There's even an entire category for this type of article: Category:Governing bodies of universities and colleges in the United States. I don't see what makes these articles notable and not this one; if we're going to delete this one, we should delete all of them. This article could be spruced up a little bit to make it more than just a list, which shouldn't be too difficult, but I think its position as one of the most powerful bodies in the world of higher education makes it warrant its own page.alphalfalfa^(talk) 07:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a weak argument on its own. Polyamorph (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should be restored. I see, and saw before I redirected this myself at one point, little indication that the board is discussed in a way that isn't just inherited notability from Columbia University. The information that is needed can be adequately and appropriately included in that article. The OSE argument advanced above is not compulling. David Eppstein's sources would normally be enough for an easy keep for me. However, even as an academic press it's not surprising that Columbia would navel gaze (just as I think we grant notability to some Wikipedia topics that we wouldn't otherwise) and so I just don't give those sources the same weight (owing to clear lack of independence that I normally would. Also, again, I think the information that makes them notable is can be appropriately and encyclopedicly covered in the main article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost all of the sources discussed by David Eppstein are non-independent. There is too little here for demonstrating notability per WP:GNG. Moreover, the article itself is essentially just a table with a list of names, not anything resembling an actual encyclopedic discussion of the subject. As Reywas92 suggests above, something substantive based on the sources mentioned by DE could be added to History of Columbia University. But a corporate-like board directory list that we essentially have here is not worth retaining. Nsk92 (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per David Eppstein. The subject is of enough interest and notability. --hroest 13:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:LISTN since nearly all of these people are notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added a history section from the book "Stand, Columbia" on the history of the board of trustees and will continue adding more material. A controversy section is also included by others CatchedY (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a clearly notable organization with enough to be said about it to support a separate article. BD2412 T 16:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough of the list entries are bluelinked that the page has a good claim to serving a navigational role and meeting WP:LISTN; the content is long enough overall that a merge would be awkward. And, enough of the history is referenced to independent sources that there isn't a fundamental issue there. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 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. ✗plicit 02:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siddique Shameer[edit]

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

The subject first of all fails NFILMMAKER. There are also no independent sources giving him the in-depth coverage to establish the general GNG criteria. I did a WP:Before in both English as well as Malayalam and the results were disappointing. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete deferring to a Malayalam speaker to find sources that pass WP:GNG, 'cos they're not in the article and not returned by searching in English. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nominator is a (now) blocked sockpuppet. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even Googling the subject's name in Malayalam (സിദ്ദിഖ് ഷമീർ) and doing a quick Google translate doesn't come up with any sources establishing notability. Fails GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:49, 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2017 AFF U-18 Youth Championship squads[edit]

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

Youth tournament, sourced only to the official website, squad lists would not be notable enough for a stand-alone article for this tournament. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the tournament passes GNG, not sure what is gained by removing the squad list to supplement it.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a regional and youth-level event, a list of every participant is simply below the bar for what gets third-party coverage. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 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. WP:SNOW Missvain (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League hundred partnerships[edit]

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

Nominating per the comments on the article's talk page. This is just a bunch of WP:NOTSTATS. The fact there's so many of them shows that they're not rare enough to be interesting to a wide audience. Reliable sources don't demonstrate that they are as prestigious achievement as scoring a century or taking a fifer in IPL. This is less important than the 100+ matches IPL list, and that was deleted at AfD too. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 07:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 07:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 07:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 07:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments on the article talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom and the discussion on the article's talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and discussion on the talk page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No demonstrable significance. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No comment. What ever is decided will adhere to it. Ankurc.17 (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly WP:NOTSTATS. We don't even have such a list for international cricket hundred partnerships. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on the talk page. Perhaps maybe the top 5 or so could be moved to the records and statistics page. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Powerful Karma (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Kemalcan (talk) 22:09, 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 keep. passes WP:NFILM and WP:GNG after improvements and addition of missing refs by participants (non-admin closure) Run n Fly (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Hills Vamp[edit]

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

No RS, no notable reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. PROD was removed with no explanation given. Mottezen (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found some mild coverage, it could pass as a weak keep now but I'd like to try to find more to make it a firmer keep on my end. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage to pass WP:GNG Donaldd23 (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources reviews that have been added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 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 02:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luan de Burgh[edit]

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

No signs of notability, fails WP:N, WP:BIO. The sources given are all affiliated with him or associated with his appearances, and I find nothing additional online that isn't social media or promotional material. Largoplazo (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheWikiholic (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite my best effort, I am able to find extensive, reliable secondary sources that cover the subject significantly. Yes, he is interviewed by the BBC a few times, but, the BBC is also a client of his... Missvain (talk) 21:44, 24 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. Repeatedly created by sockpuppet. Speedy per WP:G5. Missvain (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaitra Reddy[edit]

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

non-notable actress article failing WP:GNG and WP:ENT, initially created by Special fans Editz few days back, who got blocked for socking. Moved back to mainspace even after draftifying. Needs to be deleted via discussion process and requires to be salted too. Chirota (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She acted in six serials four in Tamil, one in Telugu and one in Kannada out of which acted in major roles in Yaaradi Nee Mohini (2017-present) winning two awards for playing a role called 'Swetha' and Kalyanam Mudhal Kadhal Varai (2017). And she also acted in four movies three in Kannada and one Tamil. So clearly passes WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG and WP:ENT for which the actress need at least two major roles and clearly shows the actress is notable for her roles and achievements. 10:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Messy, unsourced, socks & unsigned keep votes don't help and in any case fails WP:ACTOR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SPI filed for the latest account and also referencing the IP that has previously been blocked for socking. Ravensfire (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G5--article created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. --Finngall ^talk 22:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete re-created by a sock. Also Seems like a case of UPE. GermanKity (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Powerful Karma (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Poppified ^talk 11:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG, Myconcern (talk) 17:24, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sae Tautu[edit]

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

Never played a snap, just got signed for the off season. The next year he was signed for a reserve/future deal a the end of the regular season, but was released in May. Never played. VikingDrummer (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ as written, there is no reason to include this article. Lots of "transactional" type articles that are typically not used to establish notability. He could be notable from college play, but there are not any references in the article and my research doesn't turn up anything of note.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like some college-play sources have popped up from others research. Looks good (although weak as Eagles states). Keep--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Keep from what I've found: Saints Rookie Mini Camp: Keep an eye on LB Sae Tautu from Fansided; Sae Tautu seizing his opportunity as a leader on BYU's defense from Fox Sports; BYU's Sae Tautu Continues to Grow from Bleacher Report; BYU football: LB Sae Tautu will sit out first half for targeting that wasn't from The Salt Lake Tribune; Sae Tautu, Cougars raise NFL profile at BYU Pro Day from KSL.com; and Lone Peak's Sae Tautu commits to BYU from The Daily Herald (via Newspapers.com). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Regarding the above sources by BeanieFan11: Fansided is a blog site and the BleacherReport article from 2010 was written by a site user. The article from The Salt Lake Tribune appears to be routine game coverage. The other three sources appear to be the best ones towards establishing notability (the Fox Sports article is a clip of this from the Deseret News, and then the KSL and Daily Herald articles). I did a separate search for articles and did not find any additional ones, but the three are probably enough to barely meet GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:34, 12 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) 05:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sources found above by BeanieFan11 are just enough to scrape by WP:GNG, albeit barely. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:38, 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berea, Iowa[edit]

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

Our first stop in Iowa appears to be a 4th class post office; at least, a post office is the only thing for which I have definite corroboration. I get a few mention of people going from/to there, and one period gazetteer claims a population of 40, but I cannot verify that, and the rest of the entry suggests a lack of any commercial activity. At any rate topos and aerials show maybe a farm in the middle of the Iowan sea of agriculture. Mangoe (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kilburn's History of Adair County, Iowa talks of "Berea village", and of the Berea Horse Company, but other than confirming that there was a village tells us nothing historical. Hair's 1865 Iowa State Gazetteer does not have this at all, for obvious reasons. Nor does the 1893 Lippincott's, which is merely a year before the post office opened. The actual township is Eureka Township, Adair County, Iowa. This is another false "unincorporated community" article and the true subject is not notable. Uncle G (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fail to understand this lust to delete the small places just because not as much has been written about them. This is a clearly attested real place. ~~There's still a Berea Cemetery, and people are still being buried there (or were as of 2016, anyway).~~ --Orange Mike | Talk 01:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it clearly isn't real, since it isn't an "unincorporated community". Neither the description nor the tense are correct. Where did this mystery "clear attestation" come from, too? We didn't have any such thing before TheCatalyst31 commented later. And why do you think that there's a Berea cemetery in Adair County? There's only the 1 cemetery in Eureka Township, as far as I can see, which is Eureka Cemetery in a different part of the township. And the Berea Cemetery in Kentucky isn't in Iowa. ☺
  There are thousands if not tens of thousands of dubious and likely outright false "unincorporated community" articles on Wikipedia. We shouldn't be retaining falsehoods and adding fake cemeteries to them.
  Uncle G (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - A little searching brought up a description of somebody being buried ~~in Berea Cemetery~~ in Adair County, Iowa, in 2016. The Gazeteer listing was not made up out of whole cloth, either. --Orange Mike | Talk 07:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - correction of my own error - the guy who died in 2016 was born in Berea; buried in Eureka Cemetery. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from several newspaper references that confirm it had residents, it was also the home to one of wrestler Earl Caddock's first matches and had a town band at one point. This history, allegedly transcribed from a 1976 history book that I couldn't find online, describes the community in a way that generally matches up with the other sources I found. This history book that I could find online confirms that Berea had its own general store, which counts as commercial activity at least. I'd say that a community with many residents and civic and commercial activity counts as notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. Google Books in my part of the world has no inkling that a 1976 Adair County History exists. It's in-depth history/geography/&c. that makes something notable, not how many residents there are. So a decent history book with in-depth coverage (which "he purchased a general store in Berea" from Kilburn is not) counts. There are quite plainly zero residents, after all. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has references-Thhank You-RFD (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 1901 Adair County plat map shows about 12 houses in Berea, so this was more than just a post office, even though it clearly always was a hamlet or village. It also appears on the 1901 Rand McNally map of Iowa. My 1960 World Book Encyclopedia shows the community on the map of Iowa (on page 306) so it would be strange for this encyclopedia to not mention Berea where others have. While there may no longer be residents here now, notability is not temporary, and there are sources which cover this community, even some sources fairly easily located. I can dig up some more, as I've done with Arbor Hill, Iowa (also nominated for deletion this week). This community was noted at the time, and so editors' concerns about false GNIS data don't apply to this community. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:47, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whitefield Academy (Missouri)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Whitefield Academy (Missouri)

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

As has been stated on the talk page, the only source for backing up notability is not reliable for that purpose. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, secondary schools are no longer presumed to be notable. The are no other instances of significant coverage in independent sources. Jfhutson (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG, as with any American secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the sourcing was in fact the same as "any American secondary school", I would !vote to delete, in light of consensus that secondary schools are not presumptively notable. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. But it isn't: it has in fact made ~~the mainstream national press, see e.g. 1, as well as~~ other outlets, see e.g. 2, 3, and 4. Although these stories all stem from the same event, they are intellectually independent from each other, and that's enough. There's also the usual local coverage, and while that might not be enough standing alone, when combined with the above sources I'm convinced there's enough to eke out a WP:GNG pass. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: the nbc story is about an unrelated school in Kentucky. -Jfhutson (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch: I've stricken the relevant part above. That definitely makes this a closer case, but on balance I think there's probably still enough to satisfy the GNG. Here are two more sources: 1 and 2. Neither is particularly impressive, but when combined with the fact that the most recent event garnered plenty of coverage (some of it as distant as Germany), I suppose it's enough. Hardly the nation's most notable school, but probably adequate nonetheless. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the remaining sources are either local or gay interest magazines. Local sources do not satisfy WP:AUD and gay interest magazines would also be "media of limited interest" under that guideline. Under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Numerical facts, it is not the number of sources you can find, but the "quality of the content that governs." So the purely local human interest story about "Serve Day" counts for nothing rather than being able to be "combined" with other questionable sources to eke out notability. Not a single source is providing in depth significant coverage of the institution. It is all covering single events and not providing an "overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization" per WP:ORGDEPTH. The recent controversy, which is the only event that has come close to being in independent sources (all of which are not reliable sources in my opinion) is a single event which is clearly fails under the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage of the company itself: "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization." --Jfhutson (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:NORG were the applicable guideline, I'd be tempted to agree. But per WP:NSCHOOL, meeting the GNG is sufficient. And the GNG isn't nearly as strict about the audience, etc., instead requiring only reliability and "address[ing] the topic in detail". I find it hard to maintain that the sources here don't meet those standards: no reliability issues stand out, and the school is the main subject of most of the articles above. Unless consensus over NORG and schools changes, this article would seem to pass – at least marginally – our notability guidelines. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG with the bit on the school's blatant bigotry. Neither NORG or AUD apply. Closer might want to review recent school article deletion discussions, as that false argument has led to several deletions recently (+/- 6 months). 174.212.213.2 (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG, and as noted by Extraordinary Writ and 174.212.213.2 above, NORG and AUD are not required. Only for-profit institutions must meet those requirements. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant Fountains[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable sculpture. The one reference is an interview with him where he is talking about this as a work-in-progress, no other substantial independent coverage found. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've expanded the article from one citation to 16. I've not yet searched the Houston Chronicle archives or searched any library databases. Leaning towards keep but still doing some searching. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was a one-sentence stub when nominated. In the last 24 hours, there has been a notable expansion and added sourcing. I think this merits notability as a stub. No need to delete. — Maile (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would have been nice if the article were written with actual sources and substance in the first place rather than left as one useless line for six years! I added a link at George_Bush_Intercontinental_Airport#Artwork so maybe it'll get some views now that there's something actually worth reading. Reywas92^Talk 21:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much improved since my nomination. There's certainly enough for a merge to George_Bush_Intercontinental_Airport#Artwork rather than a delete. I'll check a bit deeper tonight to see if I want to withdraw this or leave it open to discuss a merge. (also, is it just me or has Google search gotten worse for newspaper archives in the past year?) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not withdrawing right now, but I came very close to doing so. This will almost certainly close as keep, but I personally would still prefer the topic be covered in a (new) article like Public art at Houston Intercontinental Airport. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements since the nom. Could use less giant map and more (some) images. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 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 03:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Touqiao, Jiangsu[edit]

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

Neither source passes WP:VERIFY, was moved to draft in hopes of improvement, moved back without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: WP:GEOLAND Pizza0614 (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of government articles and newspaper sources on the equivalent wiki article on Baidu Baike to meet WP:V and pass WP:GEOLAND. Jumpytoo Talk 06:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND Folly Mox (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - then please add the sources, the current sourcing does not meet WP:VERIFY, and do nothing to show that this is indeed a legally recognized populated place, a condition of GEOLAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a summary source from the place's local government to show it's legally recognized and thus meets GEOLAND. Jumpytoo Talk 18:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The official sources in the article are sufficient to demonstrate that the town is legally recognized, and here are more as well: [33][34]. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The sources are sufficient for verification and there are more sources on the Internet. Sun8908 _Talk 16:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 16:21, 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 keep. ✗plicit 03:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satronia Smith Hunt[edit]

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

I have been completely unable to find sources that provide more to say about this woman than is in this article-- five sentences. Not sigcov to meet GNG by any measure. Perhaps there is an acceptable merge target? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's now a reasonable amount to sustain an article and deletion is unmerited. Sources I did not find on a Before have been brought up. Happy to strike my rationale. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a real life Mulan! Seems interesting enough. There is sourcing there. Don't see any great need to get rid of this article. - wolf 04:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. WP:HEY WP:PRESERVE and WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After American history has swept this sort of occurrence under the rug for centuries it is saddening to find wikipedia trying to do the same thing. If nothing else leave it as a stub and let those interested in the topic pursue it. Carptrash (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Perhaps one of the WikiProject's looking to create/build/preserve articles about women can help here. Otherwise, it may need to deleted as WP is running out of space. - wolf 21:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The importance of this subject and Mrs. Hunt is discussed in detail and extensively at Blanton, DeAnne (Spring 1993). "Women Soldiers of the Civil War, Part 3". Prologue Magazine. 25 (1) – via National Archives. Lest we forget!

Not the article it was when nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to WP:HEY efforts by User:7&6=thirteen, subject obviously meets WP:GNG requirements and this article should be kept for further development. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I find none of the sources added by 7&6=thirteen convincing. Those are name drops and passing mentions; and frankly, this dredging-up of what is in essence the same sentence reused by half a dozen authors should be considered an admittance that there is just insufficient material for an article. Adding a pre-WWI section to Women in the military and including her name would be fine, but bowling for a standalone article seems to be stretching it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sioux City Journal (Sioux City, Iowa) 03 Aug 1928, Fri Page 7 has a lot of details about her. Significant coverage in a reliable source there. Another is at The Coleridge Blade (Coleridge, Nebraska) 16 Aug 1928, Thu Page 8. Dream Focus 23:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested links, and another surprising development:

County Pioneer Dies
WOMAN WHO SERVED AS CIVIL WAR SOLDIER DIES
Siouxland woman who fought in Civil War receives headstone -- In spite of multiple sources showing her name as "Satronia", she is buried in Sioux City, Nebraska, (NOT Iow) under a gravestone for "Sophronia Hunt"! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak delete' - The sources presented are of high quality and relevance and it's clear that all statements made in the current state of the article are factual. However, these sources don't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV, particularly the part on requiring more than "a trivial mention", which is what a lot of these sources seem to include. I would agree with the comments made by User:Elmidae that it would be worth expanding on a pre-WWI section in women in the military, though there appear to be many better choices from the category of other women who served as men in the Civil War. Changing my !vote to Keep, per WP:HEY. The improvements made seem to demonstrate notability through specific details on her actions during the war. Rovenrat (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search for for Hunt's name in Google Books returns lots of works which discuss her, albeit briefly, so I think that WP:BIO is met. I'd have not complaints about upmerging though if an article was available (Women who served as men in the American Civil War would make for a great article). Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not an article, but a category already exists on that topic: Category:Female wartime cross-dressers in the American Civil War. Rovenrat (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BASIC – article has been expanded with reliable sources since being nominated for AfD. While the coverage is generally brief, I think it's more than "trivial", though just barely, But in the interests of preserving an article on a person judged to be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" in a variety of sources, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". For anyone who isn't convinced, I think the topic is interesting enough to WP:IAR in this case. Another option would be to merge to ~~American Civil War § Women~~, keeping this page as a redirect per WP:ATD-R. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If a merge is warranted, a better target would be Timeline of women in war in the United States, pre-1945 § Civil War era, which already has a brief summary of this article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I listed more newspaper clippings on the talk page, and the article has hamd any sources added since its nomination. Her name is given as "Satronia" in quite a few of the articles, but historian Shirley Sides, who arranged for her headstone, makes a strong case that her name was "Sophronia", and the article should be moved to "Saphronia Smith Hunt". There are plenty of reliable, independent sources to meet GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now more than adequately sourced and certainly about a historical figure deserving attention.--Ipigott (talk) 05:50, 24 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. czar 05:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lion & Lion[edit]

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

GHits are not a useful barometer here since there are many mentions of them being named the agency of record for Client X and or Staffer A,B leaving or joining, however I can find no significant, in depth coverage of their work. No notable campaigns or other indication they meet WP:ORG StarM 01:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails to meet WP:ORG. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is press releases, their rewrites, and so on. The usual use of Wikipedia to rise the company's profile (i.e. advertising). Burn. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Powerful Karma (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhu Joy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Being the All India Vice-President of Students' Federation of India and the president of SFI Kerala State committee for three years is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL. She was never elected as an MP or MLA. Have a look at this, a similar AFD. Powerful Karma (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. The most recent AFD was closed barely a month ago. There's no reason to believe this one will be more decisive. Let's wait a bit longer before relitigating this. pburka (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per pburka, and keep per a full reading of WP:NPOL, Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline, and the following sources that support WP:GNG notability. Beccaynr (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
2005 SFI office-bearers elected at meet, The Hindu	value not understood Report on Joy elected president; includes her briefing of the media with secretary M. Swaraj; compare with trivial mentions of other officeholders at the end of the article.	? Unknown
2006 AIDWA demands release of Kerala SFI president Sindhu Joy from prison, OneIndia	Article is focused on Joy. Includes a statement from AIDWA President Subhashini Ali and General Secretary Sudha Sundararaman: "Sindhu Joy has been in the forefront of militant struggles against the privatisation of education that was a hallmark of Oomen Chandy's regime. She was the victim of a brutal police attack and is still unable to walk without the help of crutches, they said," which provides in-depth context to the report.	✔ Yes
2011 Season of suspense and surprises in Kerala, The Indian Express	The article is focused on Joy, and the description of Joy as the "'poster girl' of CPI(M)" provides context related to her past national -level notability, and includes an in-depth explanation, including "One striking image of the LDF campaign in 2006 was that of SFI leader Sindhu Joy leading a student agitation on crutches after she was injured, allegedly in a police lathicharge." The article also includes commentary from a Congress leader, i.e. "She is now in great demand by UDF contestants all over the state, who think that a young woman like Sindhu could defuse LDF's claim of being the passionate defenders of women's rights and privileges."	✔ Yes
2016 Are SFI leaders contesting against Oommen Chandy dark horses or lost causes?, The News Minute]	Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and this commentary offers substantial and in-depth information about Joy, in the context of how her history as a political candidate and political figure is relevant to politics in 2016.	✔ Yes
2009 It is experience Vs youth in Ernakulam , Economic Times	value not understood Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and this article includes commentary on Joy's political background, including, " Sindhu Joy, who had led several agitations as a student leader, is not the type who will wilt under the heat of a contest. Despite her relative inexperience, Ms Joy exudes confidence and is ready to tackle head on the developmental issues faced by Ernakulam. Traffic and drinking water problems and re-settlement and rehabilitation of people left homeless by development projects are high in her list of priorities." and "she can take pride that she is a candidate to contest from Ernakulam in the CPM symbol after many years. "	? Unknown
2012 Sindhu Joy quits as Youth Commission chief, The New Indian Express	The article is focused on Joy, and includes background, e.g. "former SFI State president [...]who was rewarded with the post of chairperson of a newly-formed State Youth Commission by the UDF Government" and commentary, "Sindhu’s nomination as chairperson had ruffled many a feather in the faction- ridden Congress, with many Youth Congress leaders, especially women, making their displeasure known to party higher-ups."	✔ Yes
2012 Panel will focus on youth problems, says Sindhu Joy, The Hindu	The article is focused on Joy, and includes biographical, other background information, and commentary, e.g. "Ms. Joy, 34, who holds a post-doctoral degree (her PhD was in media and politics and the post-doctoral thesis was on empowerment of tribal women), is a former State president of the Student Federation of India and a former member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)'s Thiruvananthapuram district committee. Just ahead of the April 2011 Assembly election, she had left the CPI(M) and joined the Congress, thus stirring up political ripples in the State. Considered an ' 'infant terrible' ' during her SFI days, Ms. Joy had contested the Puthuppally Assembly seat against Mr. Chandy in May 2006. [...]"	✔ Yes
2011 Firebrand SFI leader Sindhu Joy quits CPI-M, Press Trust of India/ZeeNews	The article is focused on Joy, and includes background information, e.g. "Sindhu, who was in the forefront of the agitation against UDF Government`s educational policies in 2005" [...] "During the 2006 polls, Sindhu had been projected by the LDF as a victim of "brute" handling of student stir against opening up of education sector to private sector by the UDF Government," as well as commentary from political officials.	✔ Yes
2011 Desertions from CPI(M) show a pattern, The Hindu	value not understood Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and this commentary includes background and detail about Joy's political career.	? Unknown
2013 Sindhu Joy as news anchor, OneIndia (Malayalam)	The article is focused on Joy, and includes in-depth coverage, e.g. her past political and television career, and her education background.	✔ Yes
2009 A PhD after study and struggle, The New Indian Express	This article focuses on Joy, including detail and context about her education, such as her injury during a 2005 protest, and "in 2006, when she was about to finalise the thesis, Sindhu was jailed by the police after slapping criminal charges on her with regard to a mass protest. She had to spend 24 days in jail before getting bail." Commentary includes, "The two election fights that had pole-vaulted her to stardom also happened during her research days."	✔ Yes
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}}.

Speedy Keep The recently closed AfD. Why again again again???? A nominated by newly created account with WP:IDONTLIKE How Shame! Why ppl are using AfD as a weapon ? VocalIndia (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what is the matter of shame here!? I didn't notice the earlier AFD. And, why I nominate her is just because she fails NPOL. She's here as a Politician who was the Vice-President of Students' Federation of India and the president of SFI Kerala State committee. Does that pass NPOL? That brings me here. And administrator, let me know, a newly created account can't nominate an article for AFD? I didn't read that anywhere. Powerful Karma (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the false accusation. Generally, some WP:IDONTLIKE nominator create a new WP:SOCK account first for recently closed AfD to take AfD again and then put the AfD. VocalIndia (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VocalIndia, That's alright, anyway I'm withdrawing the nomination as per Beccaynr. Powerful Karma (talk) 02:23, 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.

^ {{Cite web|url=https://www.madhyamam.com/india/faisal-babu-is-the-all-india-general-secretary-of-youth-league-778235
^ {{Cite web|url=http://barcouncilkerala.org/PDFs/EnrolList-For-16-12-2018.pdf
^ {{Cite web|url=https://www.madhyamam.com/india/faisal-babu-is-the-all-india-general-secretary-of-youth-league-778235
^ {{Cite web|url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178242153/

[1] May 21, PTI /; 2021; Ist, 21:28. "Floccinaucinihilipilification: Tharoor's latest tongue-twister in friendly banter with KTR | India News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2021-05-22. {{cite web}}: |last2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[2] ttps://lso.ca/about-lso/osgoode-hall-and-ontario-legal-heritage/collections-and-research/treasurers-and-benchers-of-the-law-society-of-uppe/list-of-law-society-treasurers

[3] {{Cite web|url=https://www.madhyamam.com/india/faisal-babu-is-the-all-india-general-secretary-of-youth-league-778235

[4] {{Cite web|url=http://barcouncilkerala.org/PDFs/EnrolList-For-16-12-2018.pdf

[5] {{Cite web|url=https://www.madhyamam.com/india/faisal-babu-is-the-all-india-general-secretary-of-youth-league-778235

[6] {{Cite web|url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178242153/

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]