Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 20	May 22 >

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. ✗plicit 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The AZEK Company[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 16:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 16:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches find various financial result and stock-tipping items but these fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 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 merge to Washington Court House City School District. Missvain (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Washington Court House, Ohio[edit]

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

There is no reason for an article like this to exist for such a small town. It's basically WP:SYNTH. We already have an article about Washington Court House City School District. The schools that are not part of that district are already mentioned at Washington Court House, Ohio, making this article completely unnecessary. Rusf10 (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Any salvageable material (if there is any) can be merged to ~~Washington Court House, Ohio#Education~~ Washington Court House City School District. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this article's material belongs in the much-shorter Washington Court House City School District article. Merge the appropriate portions there. - Eureka Lott 23:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the appropriate portion of Washington Court House City School District. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Washington Court House City School District or the Washington Court House page itself, if applicable. Gargleafg (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Washington Court House City School District. I totally agree with everyone else about why this should be merged and I don't really feel like regurgitating them. So, I'll just leave it at that. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 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. Missvain (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AR Kits[edit]

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

Not a notable company. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Also is promotional, so a second reason to delete is WP:NOTPROMO Rusf10 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination unless article proponents can cite sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Meticulo (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cant find any news on it. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:29, 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. Missvain (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Party service[edit]

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

There article serves no real purpose. First it describes an event planner, then it justs lists party supplies and entertainers. "Party service" also does not seem to be a widespread term. Rusf10 (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Party planning is a worthy topic, but at the moment it just redirects to this article. There's nothing here that can be salvaged, so WP:TNT it. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. fails GNG lacks significant coverage. Peneplavím (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back in 2006, a single editor within the space of 1 hour created Party Services, party service, party services, party planning, and party planner as multiple largely identical copies of the same article, complete with advertising contact information. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party Services it was decided on party service as the name, and a modicum of cleanup was done. This is why this isn't at Clarityfiend's party planning.
If that's a worthy topic, then that's an argument for simply switching to the copy at party planning. The idea that, per Peneplavím above, that none of these five has significant coverage seems directly contradicted by Clarityfiend's immediately preceding assertion that at least one of them is a worthy topic, and that people simply picked the wrong one of the group back in 2006. I agree, after a quick look around, that at least one of party planning or party planner is a topic, whether distinct or not from event planning and event planner. Given that books like ISBN 9781451612608 document what party planning journals are, for starters, I suspect that there is a distinction from event planning which the article at hand does not make clear, it having started out as an advertisement. The "Planning the Perfect Party" article in the 1979 San Diego Magazine seems to be worth further research, as it is a book review of Jeanne Jones's Party Planner & Entertaining Diary and from snippets seems to discuss the actual concept of party planning itself. Unfortunately, I have no access to it.
This article seems to just need more, a lot more, cleanup than the simple removal of advertising that was in the 2006 AFD discussion. Interestingly, from the partial view of ISBN 9780931411335 that I can see, its chapter on "Basic Party Planning" might be the source of a good stub.
Uncle G (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think party planning should have an article, then go ahead and write it, but there is nothing worth saving from this article.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite the converse. If you think that party planning and party planners should not have an article then the onus is on you to provide a reason based in Project:deletion policy for deleting our five available edit histories for such an article. Most of the introduction of the article at hand is about party planners. ("A party or event planner is […]. Party planners […]. Party planners can […]"). Uncle G (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but WP:ONUS has always been on the person adding content. There is nothing of value in the edit histories of these articles anyway. I'm sure a much better three sentence introduction can be written for a new article. I certainly wouldn't reuse this one.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your grasp of Project:deletion policy remains as erroneous as it has been in other AFD discussions, despite your having been told this again and again. The onus is on you to show that a thorough search for sources fails. And given that a search for sources clearly finds stuff, as I've cited one such above and a potential second, you have a difficult problem. Especially as it appears from your rationales that you haven't bothered to put any effort into looking for sources at all, let alone made a thorough search. Please get a grasp of what policy actually is, and put it into practice. It has been policy for almost 20 years now. Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Here we go again. As per WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN, the responsibility lies with the person who created the article. My responsibility before nomination is only to do a search (which I did), not to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that sources don't exist.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Now, let's talk about this particular article. The article is about a "party service" which is a type of a company. The topic is not "party planning" which is the act of planning a party which is something that can be done by either a professional company or by anyone else. Just because some clown copied and pasted this article to "party planning" 15 years ago does not mean the two topics are now one. Now you come up with sources for "party planning" and are trying to tell me that its the same thing. And what is it from this article's edit history that is so valuable? Is it the poorly written lead or the list of things that can be found at parties?--Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 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. Missvain (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draztik[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG & WP:RS. Nothing in detail about him is discussed in sources. Furthermore references in article don’t portray notability in any way. Xclusivzik (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom . the sources provided on the article are NOT ,WP:RS it fail WP:GNG therefore NO evidence of Notability 22:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Samat lib (talk)
Delete, Per nom. no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 11:28, 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. Missvain (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Underhill[edit]

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

Fails NPOL and does not have required inline citations. Already exists as draft, so cleanest solution is to delete this one and let the draft improve if references can be found. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article does not speak for itself as to how the subject satisfies general notability. The draft has been declined and may be left in place. May be conflict of interest editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently does not meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County board of commissioners is not a level of office that guarantees automatic passage of WP:NPOL — for a county commissioner to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, he needs to demonstrate a strongly credible and well-sourced reason why he should be deemed a special case of significantly greater notability than most other county commissioners, but this article is failing to do that. The existence of a small handful of local election coverage in the local media and some election results tables on the county website is not sufficient to claim that a county commissioner has cleared that bar, either, because every county commissioner in every county can always show that. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 28 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) 22:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Greco (American football)[edit]

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

Never appeared in the NFL and was waived by the Panthers before the season started in 2011, and did not receive national coverage per WP:NCOLLATH. Was on the practice squad during the super bowl. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. SportingFlyer T·C 18:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Division I FBS quarterbacks usually get enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. But in two years as a QB at UCF (switched to safety in final year), Greco compiled an unimpressive 874 passing yards. See here. I am finding a good deal of SIGCOV in the Orlando Sentinel. E.g., part 1/part 2. There is also this (part 1/part 2) from Florida Today and this. IMO this is borderline under GNG, but the lack of significant accomplishment leads me to resolve the close call in favor of a lack of notability. Cbl62 (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cbl62. Standard local news coverage for these type of players, but lacking the comprehensive national coverage I usually look for when it is a borderline call. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:23, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast Marathon[edit]

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

Unreferenced. A search revealed nothing beyond local newspapers. Sungodtemple (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:EVENT is met. Despite recent COI/PROMO edits, there are multiple sources confirming notability and significant independent coverage of the subject. A WP:BEFORE search has returned independent coverage in reliable sources like the BBC, CNN, Irish Times and other (at least) national outlets. (CNN/BBC/etc are not typically classified as "local newspapers"). Guliolopez (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has received repeated coverage over its many decades of operation as the country's largest annual mass race. Clearly notable and verifiable. SFB 23:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep. the recent promotional edits unfortunately ended up removing virtually all the references and making the article look like an advertisement, so the article when it was nominated for deletion made the event look a lot less notable than it actually is. however, Guliolopez did a good job restoring the article to an acceptable quality.
according to this page, in 2016, the belfast city marathon was the largest marathon in northern ireland, and was tied for 177th-largest marathon that the association of road racing statisticians (arrs) kept track of that year, comparable to washington, d.c. (171st), kyoto (185th), and dubai (191st). this statistic was based on the number of marathon finishers (2,155) that year, which has increased to 3,756 in 2019, according to marathon guide.
in addition, regarding sources, the bbc and cnn links now in the article should be sufficient, but if not, some running-specific sources include runner's world and distance running, and some outside the anglophone world include fitz (hong kong) and newrunners (russia).
also, although the article states that the marathon was established in 1982, arrs reports that a marathon has been run in belfast pretty much every year since 1946, with each running of the marathon treated as the northern ireland championships. dying (talk) 23:55, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of authors of Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis[edit]

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

This unsourced list does not make clear how it meets WP:NLIST. I have not been able to find independent sources describing this as a group, and I think it is generally undesirable if we have lists of authors for any major scientific report. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If a reader wants to know who the 620 contributors are, they can read the document. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Unsurprisingly, most items are red links, and some of the blue links might be false positives. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete not seeing any value add for us to maintain a list like this, Sadads (talk) 15:55, 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. ✗plicit 23:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Simatou[edit]

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

Reason Voutigos (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. I am the subject of this article. I would kindly like to ask for the deletion of this article on the grounds that I am a private and non-notable person. I am an Athens based stage actress and I had a son recently and have a happy family life. For various personal reasons I wish to slow down on my acting career, and keep it that way. Mainly because I feel that my child needs my presence now more. I feel that the article that exists on me at Wikipedia, apart from the several different issues that it has and are spotted and stated at the box, contains personal data that I do not wish to share with the public. I truly need the privacy at this stage of my life. I honestly regard myself as a non-notable, private person and I propose that the article be deleted on those grounds. I am fully aware of Wikipedia policies and I understand and respect the goals and motives. I just feel that I would like to kindly request for the removal of this article, since it contains information and personal data that I wish to keep non-public. I hope you can respect my wish. This will help my emotional and psychological condition immensely.

Thank you very much for your consideration Kind regards, Eva Simatou

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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardeless of the nominator's reasoning, this stage actress doesn't seem very notable. Geschichte (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above, doesn't pass WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR no major notable roles yet. Peneplavím (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons presented by my fellow Wikipedians and empathy, too. Missvain (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:26, 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. Closing early re: wp:snow. Missvain (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Grothaus[edit]

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

While the league was technically a FPL at the time, the league doesn't receive good coverage, so this player who spent 36 minutes on the pitch in five substitute appearances fails WP:GNG, all I can find is blogs or youth sports coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 17:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Doesn't matter if he plays one game or 100 games in a fully professional league, he still has to have significant coverage to pass WP:GNG which he does not. Alvaldi (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a person with way too few accomplishments and accompanying media coverage. Geschichte (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, my searches at Newspapers.com turned up only passing mentions. Cbl62 (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG lacks significant coverage. Peneplavím (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - less than half a football match in terms of game time in his entire career and no apparent WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:26, 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. Missvain (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Aminu Baka[edit]

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

Possible covert upe of a non notable “businessman morgul” “philanthropist” and “politician” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus fails GNG. Per WP:NPOL he also doesn’t qualify as he is a mere aspirant to be a governor. Celestina007 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure PROMO, a smattering of pieces related to the candidacy in 2019, but nothing further AFAICS, insufficient RS to pass GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Woefully badly sourced article which fails to demonstrate passing of WP:BIO, nor WP:NPOL. True notability is neither asserted nor verified. References are WP:PRIMARY or failed links or fail other verification. Instead of being an article this looks more like the background for an election campaign document. In short it is WP:ADMASQ Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:NPOL, WP:GNG - Lots of unsourced claims, with nothing at all to show any notability. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability, purely promotional. We need to take a close look at the editor who created this. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It could have also been a speedy delete. Or 'Ultra' delete. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:NPOL. Powerful Karma (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not This WP:BIO qualified as a GNG. Just needs some time to come up with more verifiable and reliable sources. Guy Macon's completely wrong to have said it's purely promotional. And again how sure are you, that the topic/subject has no evidence of notability? And why take a close look at me? Sorry to say, Am I a criminal and you, a detective? We're all Wikipedians. There should be a sense of belonging here.

Thank you, Celestina007. You're the only one that seems to have understood me. You're so kind.

I, most humbly, requests that the article; Mohammed Aminu Baka not be given a speedy deletion. With time, it'll be well-sourced beyond Wikipedia's eye; dazzling. And lest y'll forget, it's not a background of a political campaign. Most important thing is for Wikipedia audience to know of this subject's bio.

I therefore objected to the speedy deletion of

Yours in Wikipedia,

Brainbox (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to interpret that as an opinion by the creating editor to Keep the article Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:21, 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. Missvain (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Munay-ki[edit]

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

I have attempted to find third-party sources to help clarify and more properly source the claims in the article, but have came up empty-handed. Given the lack of third-party sources, I do not believe that the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and should be deleted. Suomichris (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Alberto Villoldo. The Munay-ki article relies on primary and promotional sources. The edit history shows consistent removal of anything considered critical, even though this topic, and Villoldo, are extremely controversial. (Villoldo seemed to be claiming, in a show on LinkTV and in other places, that these methods could cure COVID, among other things. I don't know if that's ever been put in the articles; he may not be notable enough for these things to appear in RS sources.) What there is to say about his methods can be covered concisely under his own name. While Villoldo is probably notable enough for a small article, the article must include criticism when someone is making those types of claims while selling services to people. Whitewashed, promotional articles about people who sell fake cures don't belong on the 'pedia. WP articles must give an honest portrayal, and be protected from promotional editing, or they don't belong here at all. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fluff. Dubious as a potential search term, and the page content certainly does not need preservation, so I'm not sold on the merits of converting it into a redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the content from being recreated via reversion, we could first delete the page. Then create the redirect at that url and put full protection on it. Basically a variation on Delete and Salt. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except I tossed a WP:PROD tag on Villoldo's article today because I could only find one source, and it contradicted what's in the article, so the redirect might not work in the long run. Suomichris (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable in the alternative worlds he runs in, so probably passes that not particularly useful "College Professor test" that may or may not still be used on WP. He's more notable that other fringe figures who have articles on here (which of course doesn't mean those people should have articles, either, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). But the real issue is whether any of this translates to RS sources and a broader notabilty that is up to WP standards. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah—honestly, I assumed I'd be able to find stuff initially but couldn't. I'm not opposed to putting off deleting his article if we can find another source or two (especially if they're all in agreement, which is also an issue currently). Happy to discuss it at the Talk page there if needed. Suomichris (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could understand if this was some legitimate work of ethnology, but I don't even know how we document a belief that somehow involves Indus Valley civilization ideals transmitted by Siberians to the Andes, supposedly 30,000 years ago...I mean there are just so many different things wrong with this that it would need several paragraphs to explain. Again, if this was legitimate ethnology, we would have no problem saying "The Inka believe that the deity they call..." etc. This is just WP:MADEUP. If the guy who invented this stuff is notable, we could merge a small paragraph of this into his article. We do have articles on BS artists where we accurately describe RS explanations for why they are BS artists (like that miracle water guy whose commercials are still running), but that would require good sourcing and it would probably require that this guy has gotten into some sort of trouble. If he's just an obscure loon, then we don't really need anything. Hyperion35 (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just Delete. No redirect necessary, per wp:Fringe; wp:Synthesis; wp:OR. GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:10, 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 delete. ✗plicit 02:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SoMedia[edit]

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

A non-notable company. This company went bankrupt in 2016. It was a cloud video technology company that had no products that I can find. Before isn't returning anything and the links in the article are all 404. There are a number of different companies that trade with this name - one based in Switzerland has several thousand employees and has a greater claim to notability than this one. The article was created by User talk:Man Elsa who had a similar article refused at AfC and a draft deleted. Desertarun (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An editor moved the article to VidWrx, its newer name. Desertarun (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did that, as they changed names, but the AFD is preserved.Webmaster862 (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I tried to improve it a little and searched Google, but there is not significant coverage on this one from any notable sources. Webmaster862 (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article about a briefly active company. The references listed in the article are routine start-up coverage and announcements, and searches on both SoMedia Networks and VidWrx find little coverage, nothing which meets WP:CORPDEPTH. (Strangely, there is a Q&A with the company founder datelined Dec 2017, which is later than their rename and demise, but this may be a regurgitation of a 2013 VanCityBuzz piece which is no longer accessible.) Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly referenced/formatted COI WP:CORPSPAM. Hope they didn't pay for this shoddy job... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:47, 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. I withdraw from this discussion. (non-admin closure) TrangaBellam (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tripura Buranji[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any reliable source which discusses our subject significantly, other than a few pages over a government publication (ed: Satyadeo Poddar) mentioning it as a small book which is little known now-a-days. That Poddar's volume from 2016 does not contain any bibliographic entry in its discussions of Tripura Buranji (apart from a college magazine) is significant and highlights the total lack of scholarship on the subject.

WP:GNG notes that multiple sources [with significant coverage] are generally expected for granting an entire article to any topic and thus, I am proposing a redirect to Buranji. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The manuscript has been discussed by multiple scholars in the Poddar edited volume. The manuscript itself was edited and published by the Government of Assam and these independent scholars writing on Tripura history agree with the publisher. As has been shown in the article itself, Tripura Buranji has been used as a primary source by these authors to provide the history of Tripura. Since authors such as Sarkar and Chaudhuri have significantly covered this manuscript, as can be seen from cited references, it does not meet the criterion for deletion. Chaipau (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not multiple but two scholars in about four pages for a single government publication. I have already noted their commentary in my nomination statement about the manuscript being hardly known and hardly studied. Also please do not misrepresent scholars to portray that the subject passes our notability tests. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am appalled by the misrepresentations by TrangaBellam. The two scholars he mentions are I Sarkar and B Chaudhuri. He has not counted others already available in the reference/citation: N B Bhattacharjee, K Satchitananda, T Misra, S K Bhuyan; besides many others who are not mentioned in citations such as J B Bhattacharyya ([1], [2] etc.) Chaipau (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau, please provide WP:Full citations for two source that establish WP:GNG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 Please look below. There are not just two but multiple sources that have noted the significance of this document. I have mentioned just two (regarding historical source and travel writing), but there are many other areas where this document is notable (Assamese lietrature, as Chaudhuri mentions) and where it provides critical inputs such as for trade (Bhattacharjee 1987) and description of medieval diplomatic protocols (Bhuyan 1938, not described here). Chaipau (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources listed on the article and also this one which provide enough coverage. --Yoonadue (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources laid out above confirm that subject pass GNG. Dhawangupta (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough verifiable reliable sources based on the references provided which shows it pass GNG 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General Notability[edit]

Tripura Buranji is an edited and published version of an 18th century manuscript that has been noted (1) as a primary source of extant historical events, and (2) as a remarkable example of pre-colonial travel writing in India. The book is not a popular book, but it is available in many university libraries around the world because of its academic notability.^[1]

Primary Source of historical events[edit]

Many authors have long noted the Tripura Buranji as a primary source: N N Acharya (1957),^[2] and I Sarkar (2016)^[3] A fuller account of the incidents and description is culled from this document is given in synopsis by Chaudhuri (2016),^[4] and regarding the document, he says: "Apart from being a highly valuable document of history it is also an unique piece of ancient Assamese literature written in lucid language. The small book, though little known now-a-days, is a treasure house of information vividly depicting the contemporary social, economic, cultural and political tradition prevailing in the region in the first and second decades of eighteenth century."^[5]

Travel writing[edit]

(Satchidanandan 2008) placed the Tripura Buranji to a category of Indian travel writing that included Kalidasa’s Meghadootam and Sandeshakavyas, Namdev’s Tirthayatra, and Vidyapati’s Bhuparikrama.^[6] N K Bhattacharjee singles out the Tripura Buranji in this group.^[7]

Other mentions[edit]

Beside being a source for historical events during the missions three visits, the manuscript/book also has been noted for information regarding trade involving regions other than Assam and Tripura.^[8]

Notes[edit]

^ 1990 edition, 1938 edition etc.
^ " Tripura Buranji: published in 1938, by the department of Historical and Antiquarian studies, Assam. This was reproduced from an old manuscript written in 1724 by Ratna Kandali Sarma Kataki and Arjundas Bairagi Kataki, who had visited the court of the Tripura king as agents of king Rudra Singha on three different occasions between the years 1709-1715. The chronicle derives its importance principally from the circumstances in which it was compiled, the revelations which it contains of the pan-Indian interests of the Ahom monarch Rudra Singha, and the mass of information which it presents about the history, topography and customs of Tripura." (Acharyya 1957:34–35)
^ ”The history of North East India is primarily based on a valuable document known as Buranjis. The historicity of the Buranjis cannot be underestimated. Tripura Buranji popularly known as Tripura Desar Kathar Lekha, the name by which the original manuscript is known bears testimony about the history of the region of a crucial period. We are fortunate that there is a Tripura Buranji written by Ratna Kandali and Arjundas Kataki. It has been edited by S.K. Bhuyan and published from historical and antiquarian studies Gauhati 1990. In the introduction of this Buranji S.K. Bhuyan says that Tripura Buranji has been reproduced from an old manuscript in the British Museum, London. A photostate copy which was obtained in January 1936 through the courtesy of Dr. Lionel Barnett, the then keeper of Oriental Books and Manuscripts. The Tripura Buranji is no doubt a valuable document to study Assam Tripura relation vis-à-vis their relation with the Nawab of Bengal during Maharaja Rudra Shinga of Assam and Ratna Manikya of Tripura. It is interesting that some diplomatic relation was established between Assam and Tripura and the story runs as how Ratna Kandoli, and Arun Das Kataki played the role behind the screen.” (Sarkar 2016:5–6)
^ The full citation would be three pages long—and it describes the circumstances of the mission, the manuscript, and the critical information contained in it and gives some examples.(Chauduri 2016:26–28)
^ "Apart from being a highly valuable document of history it is also an unique piece of ancient Assamese literature written in lucid language. The small book, though little known now-a-days, is a treasure house of information vividly depicting the contemporary social, economic, cultural and political tradition prevailing in the region in the first and second decades of eighteenth century."(Chaudhuri 2016:26–27)
^ "In December 2002, Sahitya Akademi organized a seminar on 'Travel Writing in India' at Goa. Speaking in the seminar, K. Satchidanandan made an important point: "The idea of travel has always fascinated Indian imagination as is evident from the accounts of places and people in our folk narratives, epics, chronicles and plays. Though, like the novel, travelogue in the modern sense is often considered to be the product of the colonial encounter, one can also trace the elements of travel writing - again like that of the novel - to pre-colonial times." He then went on to show how elements of travelogue exist in the fictional accounts of the digvijays in the epics, in the lyrical reminiscences of home-sick lovers like the Yaksha in Kalidas's Meghadootam and later Sandeshakavyas, in the descriptions of holy places like in Namdev's Tirthayatra in Marathi, in Vidyapati's 14th century Sanskrit work Bhuparikrama, in the 18th century Asamiya work Tripura Buranji by Ratna Kandali and Arjundas Bairagi and the like.
^ "The last-named work is especially interesting where envoys of King Rudra Sinha (1696-1714) of Assam were sent to the court of Ratnamanikya, the King of Tripura, to seek support for the proposed invasion of Bengal in 1714. As K. Satchidanandan writes, "These envoys who went on foot along with escorts to Tripura through Cachar and the foothills of Mizoram have carefully recorded in the racy style of medieval chronicles, the landscape, habits, dress, manners and beliefs of the people, deities and temples and the intrigues for the throne within the court of Tripura." (Bhattacharjee 2003:6)
^ "This area had a long tradition of short i and long distance trade. Tripura Buranji, an Assamese chronicle, mentions that a flourishing market at Rungreng in South Cachar used to be visited by the people from the neighbouring states." (Bhattacharjee 1987:223)

References[edit]

Acharyya, Nagendra Nath (1957). The History of Medieval Assam (A.D. 1228 to l603) (PDF) (phd). University of London. Retrieved 2021-05-16.
Bhattacharjee, N K (2003). "From the Editor's Desk". Indian Literature. 46 (6). Sahitya Akademi. JSTOR 23341058.
Chaudhuri, Bikach (2016), "Tripura: A Peep into the Past", in Poddar, Satyadeo (ed.), History of Tripura: As Reflected in the Manuscripts, New Delhi: National Mission for Manuscripts, pp. 26–28
Sarkar, I (2016), "Manuscripts and History", in Poddar, Satyadeo (ed.), History of Tripura: As Reflected in the Manuscripts, New Delhi: National Mission for Manuscripts, pp. 5–6
Satchidanandan, K (2008), "Travel Writing in India: An Overview", in Bhattacharji, Shobhana (ed.), Travel Writing in India, New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the template, this article is still in AfD. Would appreciate some uninvolved editors looking at this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:39, 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. Missvain (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anea Garcia[edit]

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

Article does not meet WikiProject notability guidelines, as Garcia has not won a major national title nor has she competed in one of the Big Four international beauty pageants. Also, subject lacks substantial coverage. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article failed to meet WP:GNG.---Richie Campbell (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:38, 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 02:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK local history terms[edit]

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

This is clear violation of WP:NOTDICT Rusf10 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: The prior deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/UK local history terms which as you can see became the article's talk page. The fact that we used to move VFD discussions onto talk pages is why we still have special rules about not speedily deleting article talk pages with deletion discussions on them. Uncle G (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, given Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries and that this is not an article about a single word, I’m not sure WP:NOTDICT is in itself a reason for deletion. Umimmak (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDICT is a policy, it is not superseded by a wikiproject. There has been no consensus to add glossaries. A dictionary and a glossary basically serve the same purpose, the only difference is a dictionary is its own book and a glossary is a section of a book. Calling this article a "glossary" is just semantics.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the very policy you're linking: Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field; such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature, because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Umimmak (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's very ambiguous. I don't see words such a guild, keystone, or old being specific to UK local history (or even history in general), nor is UK local history a industry or field.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 featured glossaries, namely Glossary of bird terms and Glossary of Texas A&M University terms. — Goszei (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In total, there are about 400 ([3]). This glossary should be evaluated on its merits, instead of dismissing the idea of Wikipedia glossaries all together. — Goszei (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Umimmak (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a glossary collection. --Yoonadue (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not convinced by the arguments for deleting this. --Bduke (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Ajf773 (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My concerns about this one, not withstanding the argument that it violates WP:NOTDICT, is that what is meant by "local history terms". To me this is very vague and could virtually include anything. Certainly some of the terms there at the moment are not just confined to local history, nor are they confined to the UK - Bastion, Keystone and Citadel being clear examples. The definition for Wynd is also suspect - not all Wynds in Scotland could be said to be exactly the same as alleys and the term is not unique to Scotland, but was also found in some parts of the North of England. If something likes this is to be on Wikipedia, the definitions would not to be supported by clear links to sources. Dunarc (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDICT. Tessaracter (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards delete with WP:NOTDICT but we welcome more discussion!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOTDIC. This is an unsourced orphan which just links to existing wiki articles, so it does not add value. LizardJr8 (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wight FM[edit]

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

Non-notable radio station that seems to have only existed for 11 months. I initially PRODed this, as the only source included was a forum post, which is not a reliable source, and I was unable to find more than brief mentions upon searches. It was de-proded with the request to bring it to AFD instead, and a second source was added as well. However, this new source is just a small blurb announcing the station, which I feel still does not establish notability or help the subject pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best. The only result a GNews search will give you is a Guardian article mentioning a DJ work for this station. That's it. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anorak trivia; one in a long line of failed vanity projects from that culture. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A poor article in need of work, about a poor project that failed. Neither of these are reasons for deletion. The subject appears to be notable. This was a genuine enterprise that involved a number of notable people, albeit not for long and with little success. I've added a few references for some of the unsupported content. Naturenet | Talk 21:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, none of the added sources actually have any coverage on the station itself, and that is really the issue here - the WP:GNG requires a subject having "significant coverage in reliable sources". Both of the sources you have added have basically no coverage on the station - they are on individuals (Mike Read and Ed Stewert) that have a single line mentioning they DJ'd on the station. The fact that notable people were involved with the station does not automatically confer notability to the station itself, per WP:NOTINHERITED - there needs to actually be reliable sources discussing the station itself in detail. Rorshacma (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the internet station. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:50, 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 move and redirect. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh Road[edit]

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

No indication of why this is notable. It does not pass WP:GEOROAD Rusf10 (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. With no sources provided, there is no evidence of notability. Furthermore, the road appears to be only a few blocks long; the streets mentioned in this article that Marsh Road crosses appear to be all the streets that it crosses. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/redirect to William Henry Marsh~~ per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Here is a source that verifies that Marsh Road was named after William Henry Marsh:
1. Yanne, Andrew; Heller, Gillis (2009). Signs of a Colonial Era. Aberdeen, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. p. 55. ISBN 978-962-209-944-9. Retrieved 2021-05-16.
  The book notes:
  William Marsh, administrator 1882–1883 and 1885–1887
  Marsh Road 馬師道 máh sī douh
  Marsh Street 孖庶街 mā syu gāai
  Marsh Road and Marsh Street are named after Sir William Henry Marsh ...
  Marsh Road, in Wan Chai, runs parallel to Tonnochy Road starting from Hennessy Road, crossing Lockhart Road, Jaffe Road, and Gloucester Road, and ending at Hung Hing Road 鴻興道 at the waterfront.
Cunard (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are other Marsh Roads all over the world and I'm willing to bet most of them aren't named after this guy. So a redirect from Marsh Road to the biography of one man makes no sense.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Items appearing within other articles (MOS:DABMENTION) says, "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader."

The Marsh Road named after William Henry Marsh meets MOS:DABMENTION so it would be an appropriate inclusion in any disambiguation page of Marsh Roads. There is only one known Marsh Road topic that meets MOS:DABMENTION at this time, so Marsh Road should exist as a redirect to William Henry Marsh instead of as a disambiguation page. If there are other Marsh Roads that meet MOS:DABMENTION, then the redirect can be changed to a disambiguation page listing all the Marsh Roads.

Cunard (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are other more notable Marsh Roads than this tiny 1/4 mile road. A search of wikipedia reveals Delaware Route 3 which follows Marsh Road for much of its length. There's also Marsh Road Level Crossing electric railway station in England and a book named The House in Marsh Road. And there are others. This is far from being the most notable Marsh Road.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move Marsh Road to Marsh Road (Hong Kong) to preserve the history and redirect Marsh Road (Hong Kong) to William Henry Marsh. Create a disambiguation page at Marsh Road containing links to William Henry Marsh, Delaware Route 3, and Marsh Road Level Crossing electric railway station. The disambiguation page would say something like this:
Marsh Road may also refer to:
- Marsh Road Level Crossing electric railway station, a closed railway station in Stallingborough, North East Lincolnshire in England
- Marsh Road, a road connected to Delaware Route 3 in New Castle County, Delaware in the United States
- Marsh Road, a road in Wan Chai, Hong Kong Island, named after William Henry Marsh
The aim of these actions are to preserve the article's history per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion so that material can be reused in William Henry Marsh and to have a disambiguation page that links to all topics that are associated with "Marsh Road" and that meet MOS:DABMENTION.
Cunard (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate with original article being moved and redirected to Marsh Road (Hong Kong) -> William Henry Marsh as per Cunard. Jumpytoo Talk 02:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per Cunard. Deryck C. 22:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Normal disambiguation would be Marsh Road, Hong Kong, not parenthetical. See Category:Roads in Hong Kong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson's Donuts[edit]

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

Donut shop in Memphis that has a fair bit of local coverage but I don’t think passes WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think it is fair to call several televised coverages "local coverage" The articles referenced claims, clearly meet "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Jeepday (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Michelin or similar awards, coverage in local media only is IMHO not enough to meet NORG/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. The first reference is a review of the owner's book about the shop - which I note is used as a reference for some of the "facts" within the article. Other references are advertorials or reviews in local publications. Topic fails notability as per NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a consensus to delete this article. Those who support the inclusion of material of this nature might be advised to work in draftspace on smaller-scale lists of radio presenters in specific regions or genres, or by other delineations that can be identified and sourced, per WP:LISTN. If a number of those are created, a master Lists of radio presenters would be appropriate. BD2412 T 20:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio presenters[edit]

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

List with too broad a scope to be maintainable. Lists of radio personalities by individual country would be fine (and some, e.g. List of Canadian radio personalities, already exist), so no prejudice against the creation of smaller, more narrowly and manageably defined lists if people want to tackle that -- but a single transnational list, encompassing 200 world countries with potentially tens of thousands of people to include in such a list, is a maintenance nightmare. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of sanity, DELETE. Forget countries: a list of every announcer and DJ in Maryland alone is probably well over a thousand entries. There's probably close to a hundred active in DC, never mind those dead or who moved on to other careers. This is bordering on indiscriminate. The current minimal American list also shows the likelihood that even if limited to people with articles, most of them are still most famous for something else (generally TV). This is a terrible idea. Mangoe (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable. Geschichte (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My instinct is to turn this into a list of lists, but we have fewer lists than I thought. I was considering creating a new list, but a question: is there a meaningful difference between radio presenters, DJs, personalities, and hosts? I know there are slight differences, but from a category/list perspective it seems like there's a lot of overlap. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be my suggestion as well - to turn the page into a list of lists by country. Rillington (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and only include notable presenters otherwise it would be indiscriminate. It can be split into to lists by country, so if there are countries with too few notable presenters for separate lists, those presenters would be in this list. Peter James (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would still leave the list with thousands upon thousands of potential entries, and thus not solve the problem to anything like the degree you think. Bearcat (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If split by country and not by anything else, the longest list will be American presenters as the category contains 941 pages (937 articles and four redirects); that is fewer entries than the list of 2021 albums. If there is no objection to lists by country, there can be a list of lists. The only difference between the current page and a list of lists would be that a list of lists would exclude presenters from countries with too few notable presenters for separate lists. Peter James (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Peter James. Only notable personalities sould be included per WP:LISTPEOPLE. If a certain country has hundreds of notable personalities, a separate list can be created. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That has been addressed already. Peter James (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- For the list to be complete there would be thousands, if not tens of thousands of entries, making it way too broad to maintain.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't intended to be complete, just like lists of people or companies by city are not intended to list all people or companies. Peter James (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what is the criteria? Because it is not defined anywhere on the article page.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The same as for the categories, although redirects, if the reason is lack of notability, would not qualify for inclusion in the list. It can be split, with separate pages by country, such as List of Canadian radio personalities. Any countries with too few articles for a separate list would be included in the main list. If you still support deletion would you also support deletion of List of Canadian radio personalities? Peter James (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this could be maintained, there is already a category Radio presenters which lists the WP:NOTABLE ones. And while categories and lists are not mutually exclusive (WP:NOTDUP), the list in its current format is nothing more than a raw listing of names without any additional information, and so provides no additional benefit, only the need for maintenance. Avilich (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems. Peter James (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that this is even a problem or needs to be surmounted at all. There's no indication in the article or here of what, if anything, should be included. In any case, additional information alongside tons of entries with unclear inclusion criteria makes maintenance that much more difficult. Avilich (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the delete !votes are based on a slippery slope argument about a potential problem of including non-notable presenters, which is preventable. The full Category:Radio presenters contains 4332 articles, which is manageable if the countries with the most entries are split post hoc. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing slippery slope ish about the above arguments. Maintainability and notability criteria are real and legitimate concerns, and the category takes care of both simultaneously: it maintains itself and the notability criteria will be identical to wp:gng. Simply saying it's 'preventable' does not address those problems. Avilich (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom (yes, I have considered the points raised in favour of keeping the article). MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the category Category:Radio presenters covers the subject adequately, and there are sub-categories for different nationalities. I do not feel that this list adds any value to Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 12:42, 31 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) 22:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xaviers School, Pakyong[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick search for news results in 1 result of an actual article about the school and six passing mentions, which indicates no sigcov and thus also fails WP:GNG. In addition, completely unsourced and reads like an ad. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the school is clearly not notable and therefore fails WP:NORG. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I was able to find was some brief, trivial name drops in schools directories. Nothing that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:08, 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 redirect to List of goat milk cheeses. Sandstein 08:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tesyn[edit]

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

Tesyn is not a notable style of cheese, nor a notable product (being made by only a single producer). Few sources exist, and these do not meet WP:SIGCOV.

Similar arguments apply as did for another cheese recently AFDed: Gevrik. — HTGS (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources that come up are in the Finnish language and a Canadian Mining journal from 1970 with something very unrelated. Nothing even cheese-related. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cheese won an award, as reported by the BBC. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The cheese supposedly won two awards; the best newcomer in 2002, and gold in 2007, both at the "World Cheese Awards". However, as we all know, these types of awards are often pay-to-play, and "gold" is not even the top award. This short piece, and the passing mention in Gourmet Cornwall do not meet SIGCOV, and I find it very unlikely that the cheese is notable outside of essentially buying a gold star for the label. — HTGS (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of goat cheeses - Yes, the cheese exists. It's passively mentioned in books about cheeses. Yes, a company who makes this cheese won an award and it was mentioned on the BBC site. Perhaps we could help this cheese out with WP:BASIC, but, unless we have someone out there digging up offline sources and publications about cheese, I suggest for now, we just redirect it. Missvain (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per Missvain. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of goat milk cheeses should list notable varieties made by multiple cheesemakers (or with a protected status), not propritary branded products that apparently don't exist anymore, since I can't find a website for the maker or anything else recent. The idea that anything and everything that has "won an award" must have its own article is baseless. Reywas92^Talk 02:11, 30 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 Empire of the Petal Throne. Missvain (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Nightmare Maze of Jigrésh[edit]

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

So so so many adventures have been published for various RPGs, there's no reason each needs its own page unless it's exceptionally notable. I'm not seeing notability for this one. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Empire of the Petal Throne per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Empire of the Petal Throne - That one, small Capsule Review is not enough to sustain an independent article, and I can not find any additional coverage on the product. It is probably worth a mention on the main article on the game it goes with, though. Rorshacma (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 01:04, 22 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)} 17:57, 28 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. Despite 2 relistings, there were no arguments to definitively keep this article, and the consensus is that there is little information about this place to argue for keeping it. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 12:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ore, Missouri[edit]

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

This one has proven very difficult for me to research. Ramsay says that Ore was also known as Winona, and calls Winona a railroad station and Ore a railroad switch. (It had a post office, so I'd say station is more likely). Oldest topos show a single building on the railroad, while by 1954 there's just a long siding with nothing there. Searching for this is very difficult under either name "Ore" is a tough search term for obvious reasons, and Winona, Missouri is an actual town elsewhere in the state. This old county history just says that Ore was a P.O. with Henry S. Berkstresser as postmaster. Passing mention here. This is self-published, but doesn't mention "Ore" or "Winona" anyway. How Missouri Counties, Towns, and Streams Were Named has no "Ore" and only the other "Winona". Newspapers.com brings up some passing mentions to the "Ore Road" and that people farmed near Ore, Mo. If I missed something, I am willing to consider withdrawal, as this was just very very hard to search for. I will note that Ore seems to be the better name to search under, as I found a few passing mentions of this place under the name Ore, but nothing under the name Winona that didn't seem to be the other Winona. Hog Farm _Talk 03:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Personally I would have prodded this, as a passing siding in the midst of a bunch of farms (which it still is to this day) is just too unlikely to have been a town at some point. Mangoe (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of this peculiarity in Cass County
Place	GNIS	Coördinates	Our article
Peculiar Township (The History of Cass and Bates Counties, Missouri) or East Peculiar Township (Missouri State Gazetteer and Business Directory)	"Township of Peculiar". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior.	38°42′23″N 094°21′00″W / 38.70639°N 94.35000°W / 38.70639; -94.35000	Peculiar Township, Cass County, Missouri
West Peculiar Township	"Township of West Peculiar". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior.	38°42′36″N 094°27′40″W / 38.71000°N 94.46111°W / 38.71000; -94.46111	West Peculiar Township, Cass County, Missouri
Peculiar city (US topographics) or village (12th US Census, 1900)	"City of Peculiar". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior.	38°43′50″N 094°28′25″W / 38.73056°N 94.47361°W / 38.73056; -94.47361	Peculiar, Missouri
	"Peculiar". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior.	38°43′09″N 094°27′31″W / 38.71917°N 94.45861°W / 38.71917; -94.45861	Peculiar, Missouri
Old Peculiar	"Old Peculiar". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior.	38°43′09″N 094°26′30″W / 38.71917°N 94.44167°W / 38.71917; -94.44167	Old Peculiar, Missouri
Ore	"Ore". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior.	38°43′40″N 094°20′03″W / 38.72778°N 94.33417°W / 38.72778; -94.33417	Ore, Missouri

Bing Maps (thus here.com) puts Ore further north than the GNIS pin, at the junction of Ore Road and South Ore Road, which seem to position it given their names. It also, at larger scales, names it "Peculiar" with no "Ore". This is Peculiar Township, Cass County, Missouri, distinct from West Peculiar Township, Cass County, Missouri in that The History of Cass and Bates Counties, Missouri that you point to. The History of Cass County, Missouri that you point to also distinguishes Peculiar and West Peculiar, on page 106. So I made a table to try to make sense of this.
This enabled me to find:
ORE A postoffice in East Peculiar township. Cass county, on the L. & S. div. M.P. Ry, 5 miles north of Harrisonville […] Population: 30. Mail, daily. L.C. Humphrey, postmaster
- Humphrey & Co., general store and grain
— 1893 Missouri State Gazetteer and Business Directory, page 772
In fact, the very History of Cass County, Missouri that you pointed to has "He settled on a farm just south of where the town of Ore is now located" on page 409.
So it's legally recognized and populated and a place. There's just almost nothing to say about it, from what I can find. History ignores it.
Uncle G (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The former post office is a factor towards notability. But then it would basically be an article about the post office, which is currently a case of WP:EXISTS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:03, 30 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. czar 05:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Public Square Street[edit]

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

No indication of notability, does not pass WP:GEOROAD Rusf10 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sufficient coverage about Public Square Street's history in these three books and magazines 1, 2, and 3 to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Alternatively, this article could be merged to Yau Ma Tei per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
Cunard (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Cunard:While foreign language sources are acceptable, I cannot evaluate these sources since they are in Chinese and no translation is available. Since you are presenting these sources, I assume you must be able to read Chinese. So, could you please provide a translation of the relevant parts? Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is information from the sources about the street's history:
    This book notes (from Google Translate): "The naming of Yung Shutou Park and "Zhongfang Street" is also related. Back then, because the vacant lot of Banyan Tree Head often gathered vendors and people, when the street was built in 1887, it was named Public Square Street (meaning the public square). Only the people responsible for translating Chinese street names in those days misunderstood Square as referring to a square, so they translated the street name into "Public Square Street". It was not until the 1970s that the name was changed to "Zhongfang Street"."
    This book notes (from Google Translate): "Zhongfang Street was formerly known as Public Square Street, which was an expansion of the open space in front of the Tin Hau Temple after reclamation. In the past, this street was a gathering place for the public, and there were many entertainment venues, such as the First New Theater and Guangming Theater. Today, there is also a Broadway Film Center in Zhongfang Street, which can be said to continue the film culture in it. In 1970, the government felt that the word quartet was inconsistent with the original meaning of the English language, so it was changed to Zhongfang Street."
    Cunard (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Deryck C. 16:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a historic street – one of the oldest in Kowloon – home to listed heritage buildings including the Tin Hau Temple complex and the police station. Historically important for cross-harbour transport as there was a vehicular ferry pier located at its western end. I have added references to this street found in two English-language books on the history of Kowloon. Citobun (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important street in the history of Kowloon. I have added information and references. More could definitely be added. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 18:40, 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 no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of a consensus that this should not exist as an article. This close is without prejudice for potential merge proposals that might bring this content to be merged and the title redirected to a prospective target article. BD2412 T 20:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complexly[edit]

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

As much as it pains me to attempt to take an article about the brothers green out to pasture, this one doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. It cites no independent sources, and none seem to be available and provide significant coverage independent of the CEOs or their subsidiary companies– things like DFTBA Records, the Project for Awesome, and VidCon are pretty much independently notable. A shell company to make all of these isn't going to garner much coverage, and it doesn't. If someone can provide a WP:THREE to save this, though, it'd be welcomed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising the alarm on the lack of independent sources; as the creator an primary maintainer of this one I should have been keeping a closer eye. I feel confident I can find some external sources on this, even though it is an odd animal; its CEOs and projects are far more notable than the firm itself. As the framework behind those, though, I feel it deserves to bee here. Updates to come! Radagast (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've added some reliable sources on their connections to outside institutions. It's certainly true that the firm flies under the media radar as just 'the Green brothers' projects'; it's a tricky hunt. Radagast (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given that the article fails WP:NCORP (sources are mostly YouTube/Tumblr...). Do ping me if the article is rewritten (as promised above), and I'll reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a fun edge-case of notability guidelines. If they only had one notable thing, then we'd redirect the title there. However, they have many notable productions. A potential article "list of Complexly productions" could exist - and that's basically what this article is, but I think having it at the base name makes more sense. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli and JackFromWisconsin: Doesn't that directly contradict WP:INHERITORG? A list of Complexly productions isn't notable, even if all the productions are notable. The productions don't give the parent company notability. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: it's up to interpretation. My interpretation is no - it does not benefit the encyclopedia to delete this. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elli. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elli and all above. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm a little worried the Keep votes are not necessarily based off of policy. If it's an WP:IGNOREALLRULES type argument it should be stated, but it doesn't seem like Theleekycauldron's concerns have been addressed and what aspects of this issue are being interpreted differently. For what it's worth, I would vote Keep if I could, but I can't justify the lack of WP:RS's.--Cerebral726 (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, that's where I'm at too. If these are WP:IAR arguments I'm fine with that, and I hear that, but 1. you'd need to justify why it's beneficial to have this article and 2. you'd have to specify that the argument even is WP:IAR. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me the best argument for keeping this article is along the lines of what [EDIT:Elli] was somewhat saying, of there being so many notable projects and people under the umbrella of Complexly. It is very useful to have the blue link in these articles to describe the relationship between them and make it clear why these seemingly unrelated projects (VidCon, DFTBA Records, Anthropocene Reviewed, Crash Course) are actually quite closely related to each other. Without the article, Wikipedia is worse off in my opinion. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Based on the most recent comments, I'd like to give this another round for other experienced editors to review. We could keep it and let folks improve it - but, if a second AfD is warranted then c'est la vie. Or, we could draftify it. Or ...???

Seems like an alternative to deletion might be possible, but, so far "Complexly has done a lot" isn't a case for keep from a boring policy perspective.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Easy redirect to Hank Green#Complexly. Without significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) there is no valid case to "keep" this article. But as an alternative to deletion, there is already a section in the main Green brother's article. Feel free to merge from the article history, but there is nothing I would deem worthy of merger right now. As a search term, Hank Green's article is where I'd want to land as a searcher. Otherwise, if we kept the article, it would continue to be a magnet for unsourced cruft (as it is now). (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna comment that you are positively begging for a fight when you write "the main Green brother". I know what you meant, just having fun on that one :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose redirecting to Hank Green but support redirecting to Green brothers#Complexly. Both have a strong hand in Complexly and have been co-CEOs of the company before. I added Complexly to the Green brothers article, since it needs to be there regardless of the results of this discussion. I was surprised to see it wasn't already included since it is the main company that houses almost all of their projects.--Cerebral726 (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green brothers#Complexly. The company is not separately notable to Green brothers, John Green (author), Hank Green, Vlogbrothers and the various articles on the individual channels etc. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:52, 29 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. Keep and rename Missvain (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quintin Jones (prisoner)[edit]

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

There is virtually no coverage of this person other than what can be described as WP:ROUTINE coverage of a crime that occurred, and then the punishment inflicted. The only one source that is potentially helpful for notability is the Guardian source - but even still, it's only coverage of his plea to not be executed - it's not a biographical source. Regardless of something being a national/international news source, coverage of crimes/executions is still routine coverage and does not provide any significant biographical content - hence why this article barely has four short sentences about his life outside the crime and related things. Most other sources aside from the Guardian and CBS source are simply opinion articles that provide nothing for notability. Overall, fails the requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources that is not routine coverage of crimes or similar events and should likely be deleted. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename – Rename to Execution of Quintin Jones (don't know why article name change of this was originally withdrawn in first place but I think it should be relisted). I agree with you about the biography stuff and the crime is not particularly notable. However, his execution has received international coverage and is still being reported in the UK. Controversy of racial bias, clemency petition and sentencing are quite notable in this case. I did find some additional info that I think could also be argued as somewhat notable: this is the first execution in 40 years not to feature any media witness, and the longest break in several decades between the previous state execution and this one. Ultimately, this article just needs work rather than deleting, it's badly sourced and a lot of opinion pieces that are nonsense, but there are better sources out there. I think it should be kept for now. Inexpiable (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage of an execution in a country that has news known to be biased against the death penalty is by definition "routine coverage". I'm happy to change this opinion of mine if sources are provided, but unless/until then I can't begin to evaluate these "still being reported in the UK" sources. Furthermore, COVID explains both of the "notable" factoids you provide, and those are not notability - they're just trivia at their core. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The complete media absence (first time in 40 years) was not actually to do with COVID but rather a "critical error" and appears to be developing into a separate story. What about these pieces from the NY times and The Guardian: [4] [5] Inexpiable (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The NYT piece is one piece - and I'm still not sure that covering an execution makes it notable - we still expect routine coverage of executions even in national news when they happen. The Guardian story is written by a "freelance journalist" (which you can see by clicking their name). The Guardian is known to repost stories from freelance journalists for free to get more stories/clicks - not saying they're necessarily less reliable, but when they do so, it's hardly significant coverage of a topic by the Guardian themselves. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Last thing I'll add. Two sources from AP and Washington Post regarding the controversy as well as there being no media witnesses at the execution (an ongoing investigation is reportedly underway): [6] [7] I still think it should stay. If nothing more comes of this case within the next few months then I would maybe change to delete, but right now it's too early to say, and I think the execution is notable enough and should be renamed. Inexpiable (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename It's certainly not "routine" coverage, as it became international news. A rename would make it clear it's not a biography, but instead an article about the execution (and the trials and crime that led to that), which is what gave him notability. The article is already marked with a NPOV template, covering the issues with it; it'll be resolved by someone in time, when the media coverage has died down. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several new articles have been published since he was killed including international coverage from reliable sources which I've now added. I think it is likely there will be more published. I'm unable to think of a good name for the article except his name, since the article covers both the different cases, his execution and probably in future the impact of it. My suggestion would be to rename the article simply Quin Jones as this was the name he is most commonly known by. John Cummings (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the article to begin with Execution of does not mean any of its content needs to be deleted. You can still have info about the crime, his background, etc. Inexpiable (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to cover the execution, plus any essential background related to his crime only. This event is notable for the anomalous occurrence of the media not being present. Against the backdrop of an era of alleged botched executions and evolving/experimental execution protocol, this makes it notable enough to keep. I am concerned with the lack of neutrality in the article in its current state, which appears to be unduly slanted towards activism on behalf of the subject, e.g. (i), making a statement about 'Bryant's family' petitioning the state etc, when there is material available that points to some family members recently concurring with the conviction and sentence, and (ii), relying on sourcing from journalists who had become acquainted with him, some of them intimately. RandomGnome (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Per Uses x and RandomGnome. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per multiple users above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per mutilple users above NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 02:41, 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 redirect to List of USL League Two franchises. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Victory S.C.[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search of archival newspapers from 2012 brought up only two hits total: a mere mention in a Boston Globe story about a local university's soccer team saying another team had played them in an exhibition, and brief coverage from Ottawa since the Ottawa PDL team played them in a game once. A web search brings up more mentions, but nothing reliable from non-blog sources. Fails WP:GNG, there's probably an ATD available somewhere though. SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2012 PDL season#New teams or another appropriate target, as an WP:ATD. The team don't pass WP:GNG, but redirect is preferable to delete, and the season article gives relevant information about them (that they're a new team, and their league result). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where did you Before, User:SportingFlyer. I'm finding more than that in Proquest, including a more extensive piece (not a mere mention) in the Boston Globe that still online - http://archive.boston.com/sports/soccer/articles/2012/07/05/quincy_soccer_club_creates_an_outlet_for_high_skill_players/ Nfitz (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com (which has the Globe) and two web searches. SportingFlyer T·C 15:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of USL League Two franchises. No evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 15:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Never played in the U.S. Open Cup and fails WP:GNG. Redirect to List of USL League Two franchises. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seem pl ez 11:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USL League article per comments above. It helps that Nfitz is a user who's finding a bit more about the coverage of this group, but that's not enough to save it. Granted, not making it to the cup doesn't automatically make a topic not notable (see WP:DIDNOTWIN), but it doesn't help that Boston Victory are an amateur team and most of the press generally don't care about anything amateur. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:40, 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 11:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selin Hasbal[edit]

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

A very similar case to Büşra Demirörs in that Hasbal falls short on both the SNG (WP:NFOOTBALL) and WP:GNG. Current sources are only a database profile page and 2 articles that mention her in passing (one is rescued here) and 2 UEFA stats-only match reports.

A Turkish search returned nothing better than a few squad lists and database profile pages. I did find a smidgen of coverage in Evrensel, which amounts to a brief quote from her and a mention that she is studying to be a PE teacher. This article is also mirrored in other places, such as Ekmek Ve Gul. One borderline article does not amount to a WP:GNG pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable footballer. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass IMO, lots of third party coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones address Hasbal in depth? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. If Ortizesp does procure sources with significant coverage I will reconsider. Alvaldi (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the thoroughly-researched nomination. ——Serial 16:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage mentioned is so small, and therefore it fails to pass both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:15, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Banbury District and Lord Jersey FA[edit]

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

A similar case to Redhill and District Saturday Football League. Online searches come up with extremely trivial mentions in local papers like Bicester Advertiser and Oxford Mail. See for example this, this and this. A search of newspaper archives came back with very little. Even searching for Lord Jersey Cup came back with nothing better than a few results listings in the Buckingham Advertiser. I'm not seeing WP:GNG at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this isn't an advertising site. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Powerful Karma (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:07, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damla Çoban[edit]

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

A very similar case to Büşra Demirörs in that Çoban falls short on both the SNG (WP:NFOOTBALL - see the Turkish TFF page for confirmation that her caps are only at youth level) and WP:GNG. Current sources are only a database profile page and 2 articles that fail to mention her (the AMK Spor article is archived here).

A Turkish search yields nothing better than database profile pages and self-published sources. Google searches do bring up some passing mentions but nothing more; Anadolu Gazetesi has a routine announcement, Kocaeli Gazetesi has a match report that mentions her in passing, TRT Spor has a squad list mention and Ozgur Kocaeli has another squad list with her on. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable footballer. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's thorough analysis. ——Serial 16:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:02, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3D Night[edit]

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

The references used are IMDb and a bunch of copy-and-paste press releases, most of which are clearly marked as such with comments like This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.

This short film does not appear to meet our standards found at WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It could just be certain Indian sources don't pop up on Google searches if you're in the West like I am, but I couldn't find anything about this film. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reviews by known film critics or national media. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Can't find any coverage by film media. Alex-h (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:59, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mudasir Gul[edit]

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

A WP:BLP1E case, does not hold any encyclopedic value. No where near WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 09:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. 15 (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per this person is notable. And their are similar article on wikipedia with same reference
Delete per BLP1E; can be recreated if there is lasting significance, but that doesn't seem likely. Doesn't meet either GNG or NARTIST. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:58, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

L3COS[edit]

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

Most of the refeeences are general and do not show notability fo this specific topic DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many of the sources provided are, in the literal sense of the phrase, press releases, which obviously aren't independent. Others, as the nominator notes, don't mention the company at all, and my searching isn't finding any substantial independent coverage either. Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:19, 28 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) 23:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikash Verma[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Coverage mentions him in passing. Perhaps his film is notable, it does seem to be getting some publicity (but pretty much all I see is the usual press-release rewrites in Indian media). All he has (according to the article) is " the prestigious Bihar Government Award for rekindling bilateral ties between India and Poland" (also our article seems incomplete, his filmography starts in 2021 but he got an local gov't award already in 2017??). Sadly, in the current form there is nothing to confirm this reward is really prestigious, nor that the subject meets NBIO, but there is plenty to suggest we are dealing with the run-of-the-mill attempt to use Wikipedia to promote someone (without following WP:COI practices - the account that created this bio has written several others that are very similar, but no COI declaration has been made). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A note to administer Sir, I beleive this person passes GNG as he has multiple reliable news sources as The Hindu^[1], New Indian Express^[2], Times of India^[3]^[4], Mid Day^[5]^[6], Outlook^[7], IANS^[8]. Apart from this he has many good articles. I request you to check properly and then make a decision. Thank You. Suchayaar (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

As per my knowledge and requirement of Wikipedia:General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement, a person is notable if he is mentioned in list of secondary credible source of wikipedia which says “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.”

The page “Vikash Verma” is surely falling under it, the person’s name is having a significant coverage in five credible sources which are on the list of reliable sources of wikipedia i.e. The Hindu, The New Indian Express, Telegraph, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. On searching “Vikash Verma” we can see a knowledge panel created by google and a number of Gnews coverage on regular basis. Besides this there are more than 500 national and international (Polish, American, UK etc.) media coverage which cannot be considered as trivial coverage and simply ignored. Also, these articles do not fall under press release category and are in-depth on the subject.

We have read and known about him since our childhood. Since the internet came to India lately, many news about him were in the traditional newspapers. But still if you trace the person's media coverage uptil now, you can find the person has got regular and significant online media coverage from 2001 to 2021, i.e. almost 20 years. Starting from article on Rediff.com and various others till date.

Not only this, “Vikash Verma” is credited for the bollywood blockbuster film “Lagaan” which was released in 2001. His contribution in the films like Deewangee (2002), Padamshree Lalu Prasad (2005) as actor, Bhoomi(2017), PM Narendra Modi (2019) fulfilling the criteria of notability of creative professionals.

Last but not least, as you see, Vikash Verma is the director of the movie “No Means No”, which is already acclaimed by various credible media sites as India’s first Indo-Polish film. So, being director of India’s first Indo-polish films, this person is itself an encyclopedia worthy topic and again qualifying for the notability criteria for creative professional.

So if you look into the whole journey of the person from providing security services to Bill clinton, Sanjay dutt, Steave Seagel, Vinod Khanna, etc., acting and assisting various renowned movies(including Lagaan) and directing India’s first Indo-Polish film which is already acclaimed by credible media houses, Vikash verma is qualifying the notability guidelines of wikipedia and deserves a standalone page as per my understanding or please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

So please, it's a humble request to consider these factors and KEEP the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashitamlk (talk • contribs) 12:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First thing is I am not involved in any kind of COI. I create articles in my free time as a hobby.

About Vikash Verma's article - According to the news sources He passes GNG as he has impressive and enough coverage in multiple reliable sources. About Bihar Government Award- I saw this on a news article that's why I added it. If you feel anything wrong with it then I can remove it but I feel there is no issue to have this award on the article. Apart from this, You should check all news articles again. Suchayaar (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

KEEP

I want KEEP this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmartSameer Patil (talk • contribs) 16:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A great attempt to disguise itself as a good article. Films might be notable as per their coverage but he needs more to become notable. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and its WP:TOOSOON. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

I am of the view that the person has quite a few notable achievements. And am surprised and shocked to see that the article on Vikash Verma is put under article for deletion.

There are innumerable independent and in-depth article showing up on GNews.
1. Polish Media News
  1. Article in Polish Media 01
  2. Article in Polish Media 02
2. Indian Express
  1. Article
3. Outlook
  1. Article
4. Lokmat
  1. Article
5. Hindu
  1. Article
6. Times of India
  1. Article
Upon finding an article in The Telegraph which is on the list of reliable sources, his name is with Mr. Bill Clinton, the President of the United States, during his presidency, as a security cover during visit to India.
His in-depth and independent articles are featured in all the three media sources viz. The Hindu, The New Indian Express, and also in Telegraph, which are under the reliable sources list of Wikipedia.
A tweet from the Polish Government (Polish Embassy) in support of the effort taken by Vikash Verma to strengthen the bilateral relation between India & Poland, and also a tweet from the Indian High Commissioner to Canada, Mr. Ajay Bisaria.
Ms. Margaret Pepek who has supported Mr. Vikash Verma, in the making of the film and had personally handed over a letter of support to him.
Hence the phrase “run-of-the-mill attempt” doesn’t sound appropriate and uncalled for.
There are thousands of other articles in Indian, as well as worldwide Media including the Polish Media sources such as Times of India and so on which dates back since 2017 and can’t be doubted. There are new coverages since 2017, even in Polish Media. One More News Article on Polish Media, and also this article on Telewizja Republika.
In one article of ANI News, Vikash Verma is known as the showman in India, and when his famous colour(Holi) party cancels because of pandemic, it becomes a news and that can be supported on various news articles listed when searched on GNews, and Google Search.
After going through the article on pressreader.com, I found that The Hindustan Times Supplement HTCafe had carried the news in the year 2017, and also the well known entertainment news channel of Bollywood MovieTalkies has written in-depth article about the award being given. This award was given in 2017 by the Government of Bihar, to Vikash Verma for setting up bilateral relationship between 2 countries not for film No means No, along side the world renowned film director Mr. Imtiaz Ali, and the world famous actor Mr. Sanjay Dutt and others. The award cannot be ignored as its not listed on Wikipedia. This is not the only one award he has got, he has also received a Mid-day/Jagran award which is a notable award.
Vikash Verma is not part of only one film and his filmography doesn’t start in 2021, but from the year 2004, where he was part of the making of the film Lagaan, which is showing on the credits of the film^[9]. Other films in which he was part of the films are Dewaangi, PM Modi, Bhoomi and he himself has acted in the movie Padmashree Laloo Prasad Yadav which is been featured on Rotten Tomatoes^[10] , Metacritics^[11] which are under reliable sources of wikipedia. (Source IMDB)
There are very many print article available to view.
In search for details on Vikash Verma, he is the person who has been on various social media accounts, he has been followed by more than 2,00,000 (two hundred thousand) followers.

My learned author might have overlooked and request Sir Piotirus, to please let the article stay in the interest of the two countries and the effort put in for it. Archiedesai (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note on "Polish media". [8] fails SIGCOV, it mentions that a Polish actress is playing in an Indian movie, one sentence mentions said movie is directed by VV. [9] is a very badly written and chaotic piece (possibly machine translated from English) on some very minor website that almost certainly is not a WP:RS, and anyway it also fails SIGCOV. I have a feeling there is some socking/COI/PAID/VANITY issue(s) here too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following Mr. Vikash Verma since last twenty years and I am an admirer of him and his works .

Let me address the issues raised by your good self as follows:

Its is difficult to understand that how a person not be notable if a media source has picked up the content from some source and has used some translation tool. How does that concern the subject on which the article is written? The coverage on the renowned news channel like Telewizja Republika and that too which was covered in the year 2017, are also to be doubted and questionable? Surprising to see The tweet 01, tweet 02, Tweet 03 from the the Polish Government and also tweet from the Indian High Commissioner to Canada, Mr. Ajay Bisaria are also considered questionable?
The in-depth and detailed article in the “TIP - The Indian Panorama” published from Dallas & New York in the United States of America, is also to said as PAID/VANITY?
As you must have gone through the article in Lallan Top, wherein the writer has even mentions that the Vikash Verma deserves a biography written on him.
The award given to him for the trailer by Mid-Day/Jagran Group as mentioned in point number 9 of my previous comment has also gone unseen.
Ms. Malgorzata Pepek, Member of the Polish Parliament (SEJM), Chairperson of Indo-Polish Parliamentary Committee; herself in person is providing and honouring Mr. Vikash Verma with the letter of support and co-operation, for his cause to strengthening the bilateral relations of the two countries Poland & India, which speaks of the notability of a person in a foreign country.

Your statement “I have a feeling there is some socking/COI/PAID/VANITY” is a point of controversy wherein your good self is doubting on the independence and integrity of the Polish Media and the sources which are on the list of wikipedia's Reliable Sources.

Why do I have a feeling that purpose of this discussion is only to delete the page and not to evaluate all the supporting references which are from the Reliable Sources WP:RS provided for the article to stay, and make a judicious decision?

I am sure that the person who has written such impressive articles on wikipedia and I am quite impressed especially for the historical articles, will take a neutral view and decide accordingly. Archiedesai (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archiedesai - Twenty years ago, according to the references you quote, Verma was working as the head of a security firm. Deb (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because of the security, I have been following him after knowing that he was with Bill clinton as a security cover for him during his visit to India. I have already declared that I have been following him since long around 20 years now. His media coverage since that shows that he is a security expert and specialises in Kidnap recoveries. Archiedesai (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP
- I have come across this article on a media source "CineBlitz" wherein Vikash Verma's movie "No means No" has ben placed with the James Bond movie "No time to Die", is an interesting article, with both movies starting with the negative word "No" and hanging in balance. And in support there is one more article on IANS. This passes the General Notability guidelines of wikipedia WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01lt (talk • contribs) 11:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the obvious numerous sockpuppet !votes, does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is this the same guy as User:Officialvikashverma56? Deb (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No.. he is not a user on Wikipedia Archiedesai (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This response suggests that you know him outside Wikipedia, which means that you have a conflict of interest. Deb (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
no because after your update I checked on the user.. and also him as a user on wikipedia Archiedesai (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And have extensively gone through his articles in media and other sources.. Archiedesai (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And how does this enable you to be sure that they are not the same person? Deb (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that way there could be a doubt.. can't be sure.. maybe my research wasn't adequate Archiedesai (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And also I checked the date of birth of both the persons are different.. this one is 17th May 1967 and the other one i.e. User:Officialvikashverma56 is September 1998.. but yet this is debatable Archiedesai (talk) 13:15, 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 12:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sreejith Panickar[edit]

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

No indication of notability and Fails to Pass WP:BASIC WP:GNG , Whether the local channel debater is a notable person...? The plenty of sources provided here actually gives just some trivial coverage and explains about a controversy related to him . Amal714pu (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Amal714pu (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Amal714pu (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Amal714pu (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with Nom,There is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. fails to pass WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 08:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Powerful Karma (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: , wikipedia policies are not allowing to create EVEN for some political party's state youth president or secretary. No notability , violates wikipedia policies of notability.He is just a person who comes in night debate in malayalam news channels in some days for a hour time. If that is the criteria we should create the pages for news readers , who ever x and y comes in the local news channel. THis should be deleted, wikipedia notability fails. Ivirodov (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 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 redirect to Flipper Trophy. czar 05:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Flipper Trophy[edit]

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

Ascension has some 800 inhabitants. This is basically a small village tournament, which can perhaps have one article for the total history of it. Individual articles for each year are completely unnecessary. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. I'm not even sure the main article is notable... GiantSnowman 09:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, looking further it seems as if the 4 or 5 clubs on the island have a competition (some years) and 3 different "cups" each year. As far as I can tell, none of the cups, and none of the clubs, should really have an article here. One article about football on Ascension Island should more than suffice, not the 20+ articles we have now. Fram (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect all of this walled garden of content about football on Ascension Island to one article, or maybe even just to Ascension_Island#Football. Even if the island was a sovereign territory with a "national" league I think it would be stretch to have individual articles on the league seasons, all the teams, etc. Given that it isn't, it's definitely excessive. And is there seriously a team called Retard United?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ChrisTheDude. These do not appear notable enough for a stand-alone, but they are not so non-notable as to completely remove the information. SportingFlyer T·C 10:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see no indication of any notability whatsoever, but YMMV. Fram (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This is cruft where a small island is exaggeratedly treated as a sovereign nation. Geschichte (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Flipper Trophy - no need to have separate season articles for such a minor tournament Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Flipper Trophy, obviously no notability for each year. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:03, 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. czar 05:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I.T.S Engineering College, Greater Noida[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. PROD removed by creator. It's a private college and must adhere to WP:ORG. I don't see in-depth coverage. Jagran Josh is a profiling and not news. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails all notability criterion of WP:GNG, WP:NCORP and WP:NSCHOOL. Powerful Karma (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - aside from press releases, I was not able to find anything addressing this college in depth. We are required to exclude the press releases as per WP:NORG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT. This article was deleted at the AFD before and has been recreated. No material changes in RS since then. Fails NSCHOOLS. VV 19:26, 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 delete. Sandstein 08:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elior Group[edit]

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

There do not seem to be any sources that meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. Almost everything here is either from the company, or a mere notice about an acquisition. (There is an alternate way of looking at it, which is that any company with value > $1 Billion should have an article. I have suggested this in the past, but I now have my doubts, unless we could actually find people without coi interesting in writing such articles. ) DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Otinflewer (talk) 13:39, 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. Sandstein 08:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Kirkegaard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recently recreated after an AFD in 2018. I don't see any good substantial coverage of him in the sources, which largely pre-date the last AFD. Notorious in certain Wikipedia-related circles, but apparently not WP:GNG notable. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of substantial (significant in size, value, or importance) coverage of him in the sources. Your statement is factually incorrect, objectively. The sources provided and the number of them more than justify the existence of the article. As he (Kirkegaard) is a well known public figure who is constantly the source of various kinds of media attention etc., the existence of the article is useful and important for the many people who may be searching for him at any given time. Thus it serves a good purpose and should stay up. If the countless number of lesser/=/> known public/historical figures (random ex. 1, 2) (some way more controversial (NSDAP, etc.), who have pages with far less sources, some w/ less substantiality in totality) are left alone and are considered justified/fine (by virtue of being up/still existing), then one can only conclude that the nomination for deletion is a purely political move, which goes directly against what this website is supposed to be about (knowledge). As the article (Kirkegaard) is about a notable/notorious public figure, and as the article is well sourced (>30 to date, including sources such as Forbes), deletion is not even suggested in this instance according to this website's own guidelines. To say it is not GNG notable is an apparently very blatant lie (let's compare it to your article about an obscure chef no one (outside SF) has ever heard of; sources: 3 SF newspaper articles and a Tweet, plus a Jezebel article -- far less net substantiality than countless other low sourced articles + mostly low quality resources). Until concerted efforts are made by the community to accept and build the article, nominations for deletion of Kirkegaard articles will be nothing more than brazen and hypocritical political moves (IMO). --Lute Currie (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contrary to Lute Currie's assertion, there are fewer than 90 possible sources out there, and almost nothing in the way of reliable secondary sources (WP:RS) providing substantial discussion of the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this article was created by an improper copy/paste move. I will perform a history-merge in the next few minutes, which includes a temporary deletion of the article before I'll restore it, so don't worry if for (hopefully) a brief period you'll see the article redlinked. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Done, let me know if there's a problem. --Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy is a not a well known public figure and the current article looks like a biased article written in favour of the individual (it is problematic because the article lacks reliable sourcing). Not much can be gathered about Kirkegaard as an individual or his life there are a few passing mentions of controversies he has been involved in written from a biased viewpoint. From what can be gathered on the web, Kirkegaard is a racial fringe theorist but there is not much in depth coverage about him just his controversial views on blogs. There was a previous afd plagued by sock-puppets and the vote was to delete. Emil Kirkegaard is indef blocked on Wikipedia I noticed [10] but is desperate to get onto this website for Google clicks. I find it suspicious Lute Currie is a brand new account creating his Wikipedia article. A few months ago another brand new account created this same page [11]. There is something going on here. Meat-puppetry perhaps? The political comment from Lute Currie says it all really "Until concerted efforts are made by the community to accept and build the article, nominations for deletion of Kirkegaard articles will be nothing more than brazen and hypocritical political moves". I am unconvinced these repeated article creations are being done in good faith. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an ongoing effort to insert mentions of Emil Kirkegaard into other articles as well. See e.g. [12], [13]. Looks like this will need to be watched carefully. Generalrelative (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OpenPsych Emil Kirkegaard is not separately notable from OpenPsych which most of the news coverage relating to Kirkegaard has revolved around. The redirect should be made indefintely extended confirmed protected in order to avoid repeat recreation, Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that he has received an (unflattering) profile in 2017 from Le Temps, a well regarded Swiss newspaper, but that's the only significant indepth coverage of Kiregaard as an individual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some very iffy sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Known among a subset of the WP community for POV-pushing on and off Wiki but not at all notable to the world at large. Generalrelative (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and possibly redirect to OpenPsych (that would satisfy "people who may be searching for him at any given time"). The mentioned Forbes article for instance is a contributor's and is really about an event (WP:1EVENT), it's similar with the Wired article. Most other sources are also about topics like eugenism, conference controversies and OpenPsych, more than about the person. —Paleo Neonate – 20:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OpenPsych I searched for Emil Kirkegaard on Google and Bing and looked for news sites that I was familiar with and which are, as far as I know, decent sources of information. I wasn't looking for any particular information, I just wanted a general idea of what the media thinks is important about him. I found articles at Vox, Vice, Forbes, Christian Science Monitor, and Global News. All of them are about the OkCupid incident. None of them talk about Kirkegaard himself in any detail. Maybe there are non-English or specialized sources that have more info about him but as far as general purpose English news sources go the Okcupid incident seems to be the only thing about him that's attracted much attention, and it's already described at the OpenPsych article. Squeakachu (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to OpenPsych - (edit conflict) Kirkegaard is part of a prolific fringe group, so a superficial search or glance at Google hit counts may give false results. Sources which appear superficially reliable should be scrutinized very carefully. This group has issues with WP:Walled gardens, WP:POVFORKs, etc. It's not enough to count sources and then !vote, we need to make sure these sources are reliable in context. Grayfell (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not wiki-notable independently of OpenPsych, since that article also covers the OKCupid incident. A redirect could be created after deletion, but the page history doesn't need preservation. XOR'easter (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to OpenPsych. I mentioned this on the draft talk page but this article has almost complete overlap with that one.Citing (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lute Currie has now ported the Emil Kirkegaard article to the German Wikipedia [14] and a few days ago the Spanish Wikipedia (but that one was deleted [15]). Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This might well be a case of meat-puppetry (WP:MEAT). Lute Currie [16] is now uploading photographs of Emil Kirkegaard as "his own work". So he presumably took it. There is a possible conflict of interest (WP:COI) issue here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the different photos uploaded by Currie, they clearly are not "own work", but copied from elsewhere. It's a common mistake made by many new users that copying or scanning somebody else's images constitutes "old work". I have tagged several of their photos as copyvios and others for missing source info. --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user's first uploaded image is a cryptocurrency-related Pepe meme that's circulated on 4chan and twitter since at least February. Trolling seems very likely here. Grayfell (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lute Currie has written a published article on the Occidental Observer website which is a well known white supremacist website. Anyone can sign up here and create articles as long as they meet criteria so I couldn't care less what his views are but this users editing appears to be political motivated [17] as his recent talk-page comment reveals so that is a potential conflict of interest and problem. I think this should be a speedy delete. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychologist Guy: Agreed. I'm getting some serious WP:NOTHERE vibes from their replies to you on their talk page, including this bit that they thought better of and cut: [18]. Their other article creations (Lorenz Mack, Carl Julius Haidvogel, and Eduard Ritter von Josch) should also be examined for notability as well. The first of these in particular seems pretty weak on sources. Generalrelative (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Your information: Speed deletion (SLA) as a result of regular deletion discussion in the German Wikipedia. Regards RAL1028 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would like to note that the sourcing could be better: I happen to know for a fact that there are reliable sources covering his... more interesting aspects. But the last time I posted those caused a bit of a ruckus, so I'll leave that to others to post. They weren't that hard to find, though hard enough that it brings up serious questions of notability.

Actually, strike that. I see that some of the sources used in the article are those same sources I mentioned. I wonder why the article doesn't cover those parts? Why is information determined to be relevant and included in RSes specifically to help characterize Kirkegaard being excluded from an encyclopedia page about it? I really would like to see an admin look into this question.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

21:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPROF and there is little biographical substance in the article: he released some data that he scraped from the web, he founded a journal and he participated in a conference. I dont see enough for WP:THREE. --hroest 00:46, 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 redirect to Mercer Township, Adams County, Iowa. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mercer, Iowa[edit]

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

This one is quite a mess, first of all because whoever entered this into GNIS put in the location of the label for Mercer Township instead of that of the actual "town" location on the topos, which is a little to the east. Second, the Iowa Ghost Towns citation doesn't mention this Mercer; this is a Mercer in Sac County, but not, apparently in Adams County, and therefore the claims about a post office cannot be substantiated from there. What the topos and aerials show at the crossroads is a typical collection of farms, some of which disappear over the years, and a church which I cannot find anything out about. If nothing else, this needs to give way to the Sac County spot, if it be notable (which I do not think is the case), but I just cannot see an article on this dubious place. Mangoe (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1895 Lippincott's Gazeteer does not have this (or even the township), but the 1918 Polk's has "a discontinued postoffice in Adams county". The 1880 Johnson's New Universal Cyclopædia has Mercer Township but no postoffice. None of them have a Mercer in Sac County. And that's about all that turns up. This Mercer in Adams county barely has documentation of its (non-)existence, let alone in-depth documentation for an article. Uncle G (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mercer Township, Adams County, Iowa, for now. I have found no evidence that anything other than a post office existed here, and Mercer is the name of the survey township. Detailed plat maps from the 1930s show nothing in Section 16, the purported location of this community. While many details exist for other Iowa communities nominated for deletion this week, there's just nothing for what was apparently a post office which apparently only operated for seven years. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:49, 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 03:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e Khoda Nazer[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G14, then move Mowtowr-e Khoda Nazer, Gowhar Kuh on top. You should know this already. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:15, 28 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 03:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e Hajji Mehrab[edit]

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BD2412 T 05:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not sure why this wasn't speedied. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:15, 28 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Saint John's–Basseterre. czar 05:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Family Cathedral (St. John's)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCHURCH. There is no significant coverage of this church in reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find it very hard to believe that any cathedral of a major denomination is non-notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, believe it. Our guideline for this is WP:NCHURCH which states Individual religious organizations, (whether called congregations, synods, synagogues, temples, churches, etc.) must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both. Churches are not granted auto-notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it's a building we're talking about here, not an organisation, so WP:ORG obviously does not apply. That's not the sort of "church" it's referring to (the relevant "church" for that paragraph would be the Roman Catholic Church, not the individual buildings owned by it!). Please try to avoid citing irrelevant guidelines. The relevant one here is actually WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, you could try to claim notability under WP:GEOFEAT which says Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. (emphasis mine). It doesn't meet that guideline either. We also don't have a guideline that gives auto-notability to all buildings owned by the Roman Catholic Church.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now, nobody ever said that, did they. I said that it is common sense that cathedrals (that is, the chief church of a diocese and seat of its bishop) are clearly notable, not "all buildings owned by the Roman Catholic Church". -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Diocesan seat of international diocese per WP:COMMONSENSE or merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Saint John's–Basseterre.Djflem (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Still doesn't meet WP:NCHURCH with only one independent reliable secondary source.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need to merge: all the information is already repeated in Roman Catholic Diocese of Saint John's–Basseterre. LizardJr8 (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Saint John's–Basseterre in that case. Ingratis (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- I might have argued to keep, but this is a modern Cathedral and quite possibly no larger than a parish church for all I know. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's very easily checked![19][20] -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Saint John's–Basseterre. Does not pass WP:GNG, the keep !votes are not based on policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:14, 28 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 Nomination withdrawn, everyone (myself included) seems to be in agreement now. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schroeder (constructor)[edit]

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

When I originally PRODed this it had no references, now there is only one source. That source while reliable, provides no in depth coverage of the subject. We don't even know that guy's first name. The subject does not pass WP:NMOTORSPORT #7 Designers or engineers who have been covered extensively by the media or motorsports historians. The Indianapolis 500 may be notable, but that notability is not transferred to a builder who we know nothing about. Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete: WP:NMOTORSPORT only applies to people, not teams/constructors. Nonetheless, I can't really find anything that suggests this passes GNG. I even tried looking through Newspapers.com. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC) In light of information uncovered by Djm-leighpark, this passes WP:GNG. Knowing that first name made all the difference. Courtesy ping for Rusf10 Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep::Delete: This is on the basis that I AGF the nom. and prior !voters have performed a diligent BEFORE and searched available Indianapolis 500/Indy 500 books for information. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Persuaded to steer to !keep by [21]. Quality of BEFORE is open to question and failure to pre-tag existing article as commented below may be vexacious or incompetent or intended to disrupt the community but I need to AGF and assume it was not. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is agreement (consensus) at WT:AOWR#PRODs of potential interest to editors that competing in the Indy 500 is notable; should also be noted that the 500 was part of the FIA World Championship at the time. Eagleash (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to draft space - Users at WT:AOWR were discussing these articles and the consensus seems to be that their subjects are most likely notable. Sourcing information about these constructors from 70 years ago during a pandemic is difficult as much of it is unavailable online so giving interested editors more time to compile any sources that may be available would be prudent. The lack of development of these articles is probably not helped by the fact that they've been mislabelled as falling under the banner of WP:F1 and not WP:AOWR. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for clarity's sake, this particular article has both project tags at the talk page (as the others should do). It is not a 'mislabelling' as the Indy 500 formed part of the F1 World Championship at the time. Eagleash (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The AOWR project tag was added earlier today and I didn't notice its addition in the time between when I last checked the talk page and the time when I posted my comment. Regardless the point stands that this is one of a group of articles which for a long time were not tagged as being under the purview of the primary Wikiproject for their subject area, which may have led to them flying under the radar in terms of being developed by interested editors. I notice that since I posted my initial comment a couple of sources have been added to the article, presumably because this AFD has drawn attention to the article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The item was created by a prolific and prominent member of the F1 project as part of that initiative. As the AOWR project was barely in existence at the time it may not have been considered. It is debatable which may be considered the primary project as the constructor seems only to have run in the FIA World Champ. It is good that 'things' have been added to the page – as is frequently the case with AfD, sometimes rendering the nomination moot. Eagleash (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps "mislabelled" was the wrong wording; to be clear I'm not trying to make any accusations towards any editors involved here of incompetence or negligence or attempts at disruption. I am merely highlighting that articles concerning 1950s Indy 500s are ultimately going to be far more relevant to WP:AOWR than WP:F1. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Thanks to Djm-leighpark discovery of a source showing the topic's first name, I was able to do a search where I found more coverage of him, as well as this. Not the greatest amount of coverage in the world, but far better than I expected. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Chassis constructors for the Indy 500 are almost universally considered notable by WP:AOWR. -Drdisque (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my support for deletion. It seems that sources have been found. The reason I had such a hard time finding them was because the subject's full name was unknown. I also support renaming the article Gordon Schroeder. Please note that I cannot close the discussion as nomination withdrawn because there is another delete vote.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:10, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linn Branch[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable. A quick google search and most of the sources i Saw were for banks within the town or for completely unrelated places. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced, valid stub about a natural feature, which contains more information than merely its name and location. It's not surprising that more research than 'quick google search' would be required to learn about a rural stream.-2603:6011:1301:B1B8:6970:D914:4CB2:7E91 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if the first couple sources I see are for things completely unrelated, that makes me think it's non-notable. Care to provide sources related to it? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't done that more research, though. It's sourced to the dodgy GNIS and to the infamous Ramsay Place-Name Card Collection. The GNIS entry is itself also sourced to the Ramsay Place-Name Card Collection, so there's only one actual source cited, really. Ramsay is sourced in its turn to hdl:10355/82381, a 1938 M.A. thesis. And that comes from an 1897 map and the oral history of "Mrs Mary E. Vaughn, a lady who has engaged in collecting material relating to county history". Total informational content in the source: 2 sentences. Uncle G (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no content beyond the steam's name and location. Mass-produced without significant coverage. The GNIS's coordinates for the mouth and source are just 1.6 miles apart near the Wyaconda River and I am unable to see any evidence of a stream between them on Google Maps so I don't know what would make this notable. Reywas92^Talk 20:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete The topos show this as a short trace of an intermittent stream which from what I can see on those maps is simply a small network of washes which collect water when it rains hard enough, and they do not name it. I'm not convinced it actually has an name that has or had any widespread usage even in the area. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2013 United States Senate special election in Massachusetts. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel E. Gomez[edit]

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

Gomez is not a notable figure. He has never held elected office. He is therefore not a politician and does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a politician https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverArmour (talk • contribs) 04:15, April 6, 2021 (UTC)

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not properly transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 22:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 22:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 22:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nom having only made a handful of edits (among which was an attempted revert on a prod of this article), it's unsurprising that he had very little handle on relevant deletion policies and guidelines, this nomination being Exhibit A. While the subject doesn't meet NPOL, he does meet the GNG, with substantial coverage from multiple high-quality sources. Ravenswing 02:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the senate election page - I don't see how he's notable outside of his candidacy. SportingFlyer T·C 18:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to 2013 United States Senate special election in Massachusetts#Republican_primary. Not independently notable outside of the Senate campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unelected candidate for US seate who does not get the truly significant coverage in a way to show actual notability.16:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 United States Senate special election in Massachusetts (I suggest the main article, not the "Republican primary" section, as he ran in the general election), as is standard for unelected candidates for U.S. Senate, consistent with WP:POLOUTCOMES. Yes, he received media coverage during his candidacy, but it's the kind of routine, run-of-the-mill coverage that every Republican or Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate receives. Coverage of his campaign does not indicate that it was a particularly historic campaign with enduring significance that would necessitate a standalone article. DanCherek (talk) 00:23, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Datability[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Furthermore the sources used in the article barely discusses the subject of the article. The ref bombing is merely a mirage to induce a sense of notability whilst in actuality there isn’t any. Celestina007 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator. No significant news coverage. Peter303x (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Author's question: would it make sense to work on an article on Penril, the company that bought them? (WP:Guide_to_deletion says: "If you wish to merge or copy material, it is preferable to offer a specific proposal in the deletion discussion") Pi314m (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By way of example, is this a possible start to a Penril article? Pi314m (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Powerful Karma (talk) 07:27, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concepción Cochrane Blaquier[edit]

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

notable relative do not show notability . The miscellaneous trys at a career aren;t sufficient either. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete---non-notable career as fashion designer. The fact that she was born in an aristocratic family doesn't matter here, since notability is not inherited.---Darius (talk) 14:04, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon Roberts[edit]

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

This is a fairly typical political activist and candidate, who has not been elected to any government office. Coverage of her is the type any candidate or spokesperson for a political group would receive. There is very little biographical information about her beyond the mini-bios of her published by her (or her party) when she's run for office. Her professional accomplishments could warrant inclusion, if properly sourced, but I don't see that (beyond obligatory mentions of roles she's had, as part of election coverage). Rob (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I could not find WP:SIGCOV with a WP:BEFORE. VV 11:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed candidates are not presumptively notable under WP:NPOL, and my searches don't find sufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NBIO. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Subject fails WP:NPOL. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment possible her Presidency of the Alberta Psychiatric Association passes C6 of NPROF... Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, the association isn't even notable, much less a "major academic society". It seems to just be a run-of-the-mill province-level NGO. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see run-of-the-mill as a counter argument here; it's not as if there are multiple associations of psychiatrists in Alberta, there's a single professional organisation that represents a group of specialised medical professionals, which also belies assertions of a lack of notability. Moreover, being president of the organisation indicates recognition from one's peers. I'm certainly on the fence for this, wholeheartedly agree that she fails NPOL, but the combination of political work, professional recognition and longevity of activity makes this quite borderline. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very broad interpretation of NPROF. The notes on criterion 6 state that only the head of a "notable national or international scholarly society" satisfies the requirement. This association fails on all three counts: it's isn't notable, it's not at a national level, and it's not really even a scholarly society (it doesn't publish a journal, for instance). If Roberts is notable, it can only be on the GNG front: the SSGs don't seem to move the needle. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one for the spirit, rather than the letter of the law ... or ipso facto the Luxembourguese Society of Psychiatry is inherently notable and the APA is not, despite Alberta having eight times the population of Luxembourg. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the association isn't notable, i.e. it fails WP:NORG. That means that Roberts fails NPROF, full stop. If we keep this article, that would result in the absurd result that articles on non-notable organizations should be deleted but articles on their non-notable presidents should be kept. NPROF was not written for cases like this one; indeed, it expressly excludes them. Criterion 6 was intended for organizations like the Modern Language Association and the Royal Society. I would suggest that interpreting it so broadly violates both the spirit and the letter of the law. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented elsewhere at AfD that "national" is a deeply problematic and contradictory threshold to attach to presumed notability which produces systemic bias (to me particularly noticeable during my participation in discussions related to India and Pakistan); but also visible here: there are more than 70 UN member states with less population than Alberta. In Canada, the equivalent society of the MLA for psychiatrists is the Canadian Psychiatric Association, in the UK the equivalent would be the Royal College of Psychiatrists, like the CPA and the APA, a membership based organisations open to practicing medical specialists. Being elected a fellow or president of these organisations is notable peer-recognition. The comparison with the Royal Societies is inappropriate, the equivalent for psychiatry, the Royal Society of Medicine, has a different status and does not carry the same peer recognition (eg one simply reaches a level of seniority and pays a fee to be a fellow of the RSM). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I conducted a WP:BEFORE search and determined that the association was not notable under WP:NORG. (My presumptions never entered into it.) If the association isn't notable, NPROF doesn't apply, regardless of whether it's provincial, national, international, or intergalatic. ("president of a notable national or international scholarly society", emphasis mine, is the standard.) In any event, it seems your issue is more with NPROF than its application to this article; perhaps you should start an RfC on revising it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete presidency of the Alberta Psychiatric society does not meet any academic notability guidelines, the society does not meet our perameters for such societies the presidency of which makes one notable. There is no other indication of notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 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.

^ Mishra, Lalatendu (2021-01-25). "Indo-Polish action thriller aims to rekindle bilateral ties". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2021-05-28.
^ "Filmmaker Vikash Verma's 'No Means No', is the first-ever Indo-Polish co-production". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2021-05-28.
^ "Vikash Verma talks about his Indo-Polish venture 'No Means No' - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2021-05-28.
^ "People are fed up watching films on phones & TV, they want to return to theatres, says filmmaker Vikash Verma - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2021-05-28.
^ "Poland's first film outing with India Vikash Verma's No Means No, an ode to Winter Games". origin.mid-day.com. 2021-04-17. Retrieved 2021-05-28.
^ "Here`s an insightful journey of director Vikash Verma, to direct India`s first Indo Polish film No Means No". www.mid-day.com. 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2021-05-28.
^ "Films Have The Power To Break Boundaries". https://www.outlookindia.com/. Retrieved 2021-05-28. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
^ आईएएनएस. "जब तक वैक्सीनेशन पूरा नहीं हो जाता, फिल्म रिलीज नहीं करूंगा : विकास वर्मा (साक्षात्कार)". IANS Live. Retrieved 2021-05-28.
^ "Credits of Lagaan Film".
^ "Vikash Verma on Rotten Tomatoes". Rotten Tomatoes.
^ "Vikash Verma on Metacritic". Metacritic.

[1] 1990 edition, 1938 edition etc.

[2] " Tripura Buranji: published in 1938, by the department of Historical and Antiquarian studies, Assam. This was reproduced from an old manuscript written in 1724 by Ratna Kandali Sarma Kataki and Arjundas Bairagi Kataki, who had visited the court of the Tripura king as agents of king Rudra Singha on three different occasions between the years 1709-1715. The chronicle derives its importance principally from the circumstances in which it was compiled, the revelations which it contains of the pan-Indian interests of the Ahom monarch Rudra Singha, and the mass of information which it presents about the history, topography and customs of Tripura." (Acharyya 1957:34–35)

[3] ”The history of North East India is primarily based on a valuable document known as Buranjis. The historicity of the Buranjis cannot be underestimated. Tripura Buranji popularly known as Tripura Desar Kathar Lekha, the name by which the original manuscript is known bears testimony about the history of the region of a crucial period. We are fortunate that there is a Tripura Buranji written by Ratna Kandali and Arjundas Kataki. It has been edited by S.K. Bhuyan and published from historical and antiquarian studies Gauhati 1990. In the introduction of this Buranji S.K. Bhuyan says that Tripura Buranji has been reproduced from an old manuscript in the British Museum, London. A photostate copy which was obtained in January 1936 through the courtesy of Dr. Lionel Barnett, the then keeper of Oriental Books and Manuscripts. The Tripura Buranji is no doubt a valuable document to study Assam Tripura relation vis-à-vis their relation with the Nawab of Bengal during Maharaja Rudra Shinga of Assam and Ratna Manikya of Tripura. It is interesting that some diplomatic relation was established between Assam and Tripura and the story runs as how Ratna Kandoli, and Arun Das Kataki played the role behind the screen.” (Sarkar 2016:5–6)

[4] The full citation would be three pages long—and it describes the circumstances of the mission, the manuscript, and the critical information contained in it and gives some examples.(Chauduri 2016:26–28)

[5] "Apart from being a highly valuable document of history it is also an unique piece of ancient Assamese literature written in lucid language. The small book, though little known now-a-days, is a treasure house of information vividly depicting the contemporary social, economic, cultural and political tradition prevailing in the region in the first and second decades of eighteenth century."(Chaudhuri 2016:26–27)

[6] "In December 2002, Sahitya Akademi organized a seminar on 'Travel Writing in India' at Goa. Speaking in the seminar, K. Satchidanandan made an important point: "The idea of travel has always fascinated Indian imagination as is evident from the accounts of places and people in our folk narratives, epics, chronicles and plays. Though, like the novel, travelogue in the modern sense is often considered to be the product of the colonial encounter, one can also trace the elements of travel writing - again like that of the novel - to pre-colonial times." He then went on to show how elements of travelogue exist in the fictional accounts of the digvijays in the epics, in the lyrical reminiscences of home-sick lovers like the Yaksha in Kalidas's Meghadootam and later Sandeshakavyas, in the descriptions of holy places like in Namdev's Tirthayatra in Marathi, in Vidyapati's 14th century Sanskrit work Bhuparikrama, in the 18th century Asamiya work Tripura Buranji by Ratna Kandali and Arjundas Bairagi and the like.

[7] "The last-named work is especially interesting where envoys of King Rudra Sinha (1696-1714) of Assam were sent to the court of Ratnamanikya, the King of Tripura, to seek support for the proposed invasion of Bengal in 1714. As K. Satchidanandan writes, "These envoys who went on foot along with escorts to Tripura through Cachar and the foothills of Mizoram have carefully recorded in the racy style of medieval chronicles, the landscape, habits, dress, manners and beliefs of the people, deities and temples and the intrigues for the throne within the court of Tripura." (Bhattacharjee 2003:6)

[8] "This area had a long tradition of short i and long distance trade. Tripura Buranji, an Assamese chronicle, mentions that a flourishing market at Rungreng in South Cachar used to be visited by the people from the neighbouring states." (Bhattacharjee 1987:223)

[9] Mishra, Lalatendu (2021-01-25). "Indo-Polish action thriller aims to rekindle bilateral ties". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2021-05-28.

[10] "Filmmaker Vikash Verma's 'No Means No', is the first-ever Indo-Polish co-production". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2021-05-28.

[11] "Vikash Verma talks about his Indo-Polish venture 'No Means No' - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2021-05-28.

[12] "People are fed up watching films on phones & TV, they want to return to theatres, says filmmaker Vikash Verma - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2021-05-28.

[13] "Poland's first film outing with India Vikash Verma's No Means No, an ode to Winter Games". origin.mid-day.com. 2021-04-17. Retrieved 2021-05-28.

[14] "Here`s an insightful journey of director Vikash Verma, to direct India`s first Indo Polish film No Means No". www.mid-day.com. 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2021-05-28.

[15] "Films Have The Power To Break Boundaries". https://www.outlookindia.com/. Retrieved 2021-05-28. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[16] आईएएनएस. "जब तक वैक्सीनेशन पूरा नहीं हो जाता, फिल्म रिलीज नहीं करूंगा : विकास वर्मा (साक्षात्कार)". IANS Live. Retrieved 2021-05-28.

[17] "Credits of Lagaan Film".

[18] "Vikash Verma on Rotten Tomatoes". Rotten Tomatoes.

[19] "Vikash Verma on Metacritic". Metacritic.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]