Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 25	May 27 >

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. Missvain (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcing international Maritime Legislation on Air Pollution through UNCLOS[edit]

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

I'm getting the impression that this book is being promoted here. Perhaps not surprisingly for a recent book in a very specialized niche, there seem to be zero reviews available, and cites in the scientific literature are minimal. It does pop up as a source in a number of WP articles, but all of these were added by the author of this article. I'm leery to label the latter as targeted promotion (albeit it may have been intended as such) - the book would certainly seem to be a valid, professional source. But I can't see a case for it requiring an article of its own. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did find a single review and I also see where it was used as a reference here, but these aren't enough to establish notability per NBOOK. The notability just isn't there yet. I tried cleaning it up when I found the first review, hopeful that there would be more, but that was the only one - and I searched in several places (JSTOR, Google, Google Scholar, Google Books, a college database). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBOOK. This is a generic book on a technical topic, no particular notability that I can find. LizardJr8 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devoke water 20:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 17:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Leonard (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor leaguer, fails WP:NBASE. SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 19 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, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The News & Observer 2017 and Houston Chronicle / Examiner 2011 sources cited in the article are significant coverage in independent and well-established news outlets. Adumbrativus (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first article is a feature article from the city in which he played minor league baseball, the second article is "local high school player gets drafted." Neither get past WP:ROUTINE coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 11:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable minor league player....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I thought it was enough when I created it. The sources present plus the News Observer piece Adumbrativus found should be enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG with the WP:SIGCOV that is cited in the article, as well as the sources cited above by Adumbravitus, and also this, this, this, this, and this. Reliance on WP:ROUTINE is completely misplaced. That guideline applies to passing mentions in game coverage and brief transactional reports of injuries, releases, etc. It does not apply to the type of feature coverage that Leonard received. Cbl62 (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gwenaëlle Thomas[edit]

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

Because I'm a glutton for punishment, here's another proposition to delete a well-meaning, well-researched, well-referenced article on a young scientist who just does not meet our notability requirements. Thomas is as yet merely a PhD candidate, which already pretty much precludes applicability of WP:NPROF. As to GNG, she started a YouTube channel that is sparsely patronized, and appears to be involved with Black In Neuro (which is inconveniently down at the moment). Neither of these seem to have attracted the kind of coverage we would expect to justify an article - basically it's all in-house. So unless there is undiscovered material hiding somewhere that could shore up 3rd party coverage, this would seem to be another WP:TOOSOON case. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment we should probably contact the organizers of this course since this seems like a bad idea from the course organizers. While well meaning, writing articles about non notable people is not the way to go here. --hroest 01:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS I wrote an email to Ian and hope to ping them here Ian (Wiki Ed) and UncommonLeaders. --hroest 01:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly as much too soon while sobbing at the waste of student effort. I will note that the students did the training exercise that includes finding a notable topic. (The same page is also in the teacher training materials). In addition the biographies guide listed on the course Timeline says Notability means the subject has received significant coverage, over a period of time, in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. It also provides links to WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMICS. I don't know what else WikiEd can do, except put together a list of pitfalls that instructors should avoid. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article makes zero claims to notability. Honestly I don't think WikiEd courses should even be writing NPROF bios, much less BLPs. They seem especially prone to not only pushing non-notable subjects into mainspace, but also introducing false information (not necessarily in this case) and a healthy degree of COI (it seems very likely the author knows the subject, otherwise why and how would they choose her to write about??). Not to mention the potential embarrassment of the subject from having a wildly premature profile on WP followed by a public deletion discussion. Either the student or instructor (or both) seriously messed up here. JoelleJay (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Independent and reliable sources suggest there is a developing basis for WP:BASIC notability: The odds are stacked against black, Latino students going to grad school. Here are some solutions (PBS NewsHour, 2019, quotes with context and educational background), Black in Neuro Week puts spotlight on Black scientists studying the brain (The News&Observer, 2020, context, several quotes, career and some biographical information), but that is all I have been able to find at this point. Beccaynr (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also found the same sourcing as Beccaynr, but, I think it's WP:TOOSOON and not enough to convince me of WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree it is WP:TOOSOON and there is not enough for WP:BASIC based on the sources we have found. Beccaynr (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just want to convey that it is a well written article. A good amount of research and writing skills developed definitely won't go in vain in the long term. Best! VV 11:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with WP:TOOSOON, right now the article does not support WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much, much TOOSOON. While I applaud the effort, I echo JoelleJay's thoughts about WikiEd courses creating BLPs. --Kbabej (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vitrolles, Bouches-du-Rhône. ✗plicit 06:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stade Jules-Ladoumègue (Vitrolles)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The rugby club and football club that play here are both amateurs throughout their entire histories. The only source is from the town's website, the owner of the stadium (primary source). There is no indication of notability for this stadium in my analysis. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Redirect to parent article - Vitrolles, Bouches-du-Rhône - as possible search term. Giant Snowman 20:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - as per User:GiantSnowman Ingratis (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting sounds like a good idea. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:26, 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 SO Romorantin. ✗plicit 06:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stade Jules-Ladoumègue (Romorantin-Lanthenay)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No indication of notability. The football club that plays here has always been amateur. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The amateur status of the team has nothing to do with the stadium. The French version of the article suggests that there has been some coverage of the stadium, mostly in French of course. Our article simply needs improving, not deleting. BigDom (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @BigDom: the fact that the team has always been amateur does matter because of this. And I don't see WP:GNG being met. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Paul Vaurie: Fair enough, wasn't aware of that guideline - I just knew we didn't have any specific stadium notability guidelines tied to professional/amateur status in the Football WikiProject. Obviously GNG being met is always a bit subjective and this case is a little borderline. I wouldn't object too strongly to GiantSnowman's suggestion below of a redirect to the club page for now. BigDom (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article - SO Romorantin - as possible search term. Giant Snowman 20:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article - SO Romorantin per GS.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - as per User:GiantSnowman Ingratis (talk) 00:50, 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) 23:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PetCode[edit]

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

completely and utterly non-notable super spammed startup with no meaningful indepth coverage BEACHIDICAE🌊 21:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G4. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notability-wise, it seems like a feel-good-one-time story. Also, what is the point of an online database if you only have one pet? This seems like it could be replaced by a piece of paper and a pencil in the kitchen drawer. Might be popular among 80 year old recluses who have twenty cats. Signed, not a young whippersnapper.--- Possibly (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the sources seem good enough. I couldn't find any signs of spammy content. Regarding WP:PROMO mentioned in the previous nomination, the current article doesn't seem promotional any longer. Therefore, I object the deletion. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being good enough and seeming good enough are two different matters. Only one is important here and this is a far cry from it. BEACHIDICAE🌊 22:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can explain why you don't like the sources. I've merged 2 duplicate references. One of the remaining references is PR. The rest are fine for me. Forbes, NBC... Dr.KBAHT (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - paid-for spam, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arnuvtandon. MER-C 15:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much like Dr.KBAHT I see some references that seem to meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one has provided a single keep vote based on actual sources - nor have they provided sources or relevant policy that allows us to ignore WP:V. BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails verifiability and notability. -- Dane ^talk 18:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ukiah, California. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 17:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El Roble, California[edit]

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

I almost PRODded this, but there was one passing reference to this as a town (in yet another book on placename origins), and I didn't want to go through the process twice. Anyway, I don't think that's good enough as testimony, as it's likely the author simply assumed that a name on a map was for a town. What it actually was is pretty clear: as "formerly, El Roble Siding" suggests, it was a very minor Northwestern Pacific station stop. Other than that, the placenames reference, and a lot of name drops in locating other things, I found nothing, and the maps and aerials show that it just sits in the middle of a bunch of agriculture. Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a C46 creation. The author wasn't looking at a map. The author was reading a GNIS record that said "Populated (Community) Place" and "Variant Name El Roble Siding".
This was indeed a stop between Henry and Ukiah, per what I can turn up (including Field operations of the Bureau of Soils 1914, page 2636, which also explains Hopland, California versus Old Hopland, California and gives a clearer idea of what to do about Largo, California (AfD discussion)). There doesn't seem to be anything to say about it. However, I think that the Largo idea may apply here.
Uncle G (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Ukiah area per Uncle G's suggestion in the Largo Afd discussion. It is a Populated, legally recognized place per WP:GEOLAND, so by that reasoning it has the presumption of notability, but really, by the smallest of margins. If it was a siding, it probably was regarded as a 'place' by the inhabitants who would have referred to themselves as living there by it's name, but it has no other notability than that based on the sources mentioned. AntiVan (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ukiah area per all above. Peneplavím (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @AntiVan and Peneplavím: We can't redirect to a nonexistent article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ukiah, California. Missvain (talk) 01:10, 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) 22:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Parker (biblicist)[edit]

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

This is a terrible article, but apart from that, the subject fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment clearly fails NPROF and needs a complete overhaul of the full article, but if there are indeed multiple newspaper articles about his political activity in France in the 1970s then he is probably notable per GNG. --hroest 14:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the "Parker affair" probably falls under WP:ONEEVENT. St Anselm (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~I added the authority control template to the article and nothing came up which indicares that World Cat has no record of any of his works being held in any libraries at all.~~ Also a number of his works have only been published on his own website so I don't see him as a significant author and the French coverage seems to be WP:BLP1E in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment about library holdings as some have now been found as below Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i have added citations to the Thesis paragraph and i have formalised the language. I do not think Andrew Parker is notable for only one event. I believe he is also notable for having an important understanding of the bible, one which was of great interest to me when i came across it, through no connection to him, and one which i think is of interest to other people. His great grandfather was notable and i have made a link to that page. Andrew Parker also has published books and articles. This is more than many people seem to have who have a wiki page. What action should i take now please? julie

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article deserves to be kept on account of his books. I investigated the first and foun d it to be publsihed by an academic press with copies in 15 libraries, mostly academic ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I have added two additional citations to published books - one by Keith Hebden and another by John Mantle - where Andrew Parker is talked about. I hope this helps. Thank you.Jmmansfield (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 07:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:AUTHOR (the library-holding counts mentioned above, for example, are very small numbers), and the available secondary sources either are passing mentions or run into the WP:ONEEVENT problem noted earlier. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to understand what is to be gained by wanting to delete this page. I wrote it in good faith - because i think Andrew Parker has a note-worthy perspective, some published material which i believe is of value to people who are interested in the Bible, and an interesting background which was sufficiently note-worthy to be reported in teh national press. I have no relationship with him, having come across his work through other websites, and think that if i find him and his work note-worthy and valuable then others will too. I have added in some more citations to books where he is discussed and quoted, and i have added in more citations about his thesis. Why is Andrew Parker up for deletion but yet, for example, the Dean of St Edmundsbury Cathedral allowed an entry when the only notable thing about him is his job title and the fact that he put his name to a group-letter to the Church Times? I have absolutely nothing against the Dean of St Edmundsbury Cathedral. He's a lovely bloke but the acceptance / deletion criteria seem very random and concerned with prestige. I agree that Andrew Parker is not the most notable person ever to be written about but i propose that he is notable enough through the combination of his published work and his having been reported in the press. julie Jmmansfield (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one is doubting your good faith in writing the page. The trouble is that we have to go by what's already available in print, not just our own passions — believe me, there are half a dozen biographies I would have written about people whose work I have found inspirational, but sadly, given the nature of the Wikipedia project, it's just not the place for them. And supposing that I had, and then somebody had come along and said those pages should be deleted, pointing to other articles and asking why they exist would be an unconstructive thing for me to do. There's a lot of miscellany floating around Wikipedia. Sometimes, articles only exist because they haven't been noticed yet. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply - but i don't feel you have answered my points. Andrew Parker does have a noteworthy background in that he was written about in the national press of France, England and Scotland. He does have published books and articles and he is quoted and referred to by others in their published books. His work and his own website is discussed by interest-groups. His page is no longer an orphan page because i have just linked his great-grandfather's page to it - Robert Rainy. I could also link it to the wiki pages of other family members of his . Would that be helpful? Thanks again for your help and time. Jmmansfield (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! i would just like to confirm that i think this article deserves to be kept. I think i have answered all the objections;

- i wrote the article because i came across Andrew Parker's work through third-party websites. I am not connected or related to him.
- this article is no longer an orphan article as i have connected his great-grandfather's page to this one. Andrew Parker's great-grandfather was Robert Rainy who was a 
   Principal of New College, Edinburgh and a theologian.
- i have added in citations to the sources for his thesis.
- Andrew Parker's background is noteworthy because of his grassroots activism in France which got him into arguments with the French authorities which in turn led to his 
  expulsion from France and the later cancellation of that expulsion. This was not a single event but a protracted episode which went on for some time and was reported in the 
  national press of France, the UK and Scotland.
- Andrew Parker has published books.
- Andrew Parker has written chapters which appear in published books.
- Andrew Parker is referred to and quoted in other, unrelated people's published books.
- Andrew Parker writes blog articles which are published on websites.

Thanks. julie Jmmansfield (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mersheena Neenu[edit]

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

She appeared apparently only in a single notable production Konjam Konjam, not sure if in a lead role. The television appearances do not give impression that she passes WP:NACTOR. Chirota (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They all seem to be bit parts. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Main roles in Konjam Konjam, Agni Natchathiram (TV series), Sathya Enna Penkutty, so meets WP:NACTOR Furius (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR as she played lead roles in these Konjam Konjam, Agni Natchathiram (TV series), Sathya Enna Penkutty movies and television series. Poppified ^talk 12:48, 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) 19:40, 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 Nicholas Simon. ✗plicit 06:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indochina Productions[edit]

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

Movie logistics company does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage is either not independent or passing mentions in articles focussed on its Managing Director or the films it has been involved with. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - notability is not inherited. The list of films does not establish notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's also a production company. Some of the sources do cover it in some detail, but mostly they're focused on the co-founder, and maybe an article with him as the subject would more clearly satisfy the notability guidelines. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is already an article about the founder: Nicholas Simon. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I missed that it has since been created. Maybe redirecting could also be considered as an option. I'm not necessarily convinced, though, as there are Thai sources focused on the company's other founders (they also only mention the company in passing.) --Paul_012 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:58, 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) 19:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nicholas Simon as per WP:ATD, references fail to discuss the company in details, fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nicholas Simon: per HighKing rationale. Kolma8 (talk) 07:52, 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 no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Neither keep nor delete arguments here are substantially helpful toward resolution. If a new discussion is opened, it should focus on whether or not there is a substantial quantity of reliable and independent reference material available to write an article about this individual, not what they have won or anything else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Rodríguez[edit]

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

Fails GNG, Fails ANYBIO, Fails BLP1E standards ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's a national beauty pageant titleholder of her country. She's Miss Venezuela 2018. She's Miss Venezuela, the winner of the most important beauty contest of her type in her country. She also has considerable well-known participation in Miss World 2019, was Top 40; winner of the Head to Head chalenge. She has been the presenter of Miss Venezuela pageants and TV host of the longest daytime TV program in Venezuela Portada's at Venevisión network.--Mauriziok (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete previously deleted, no reason to keep this time. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is this article going to be deleted?

Hi everyone. I consider, that it does not seem fair to me, the eventual elimination, of the article, of the former beauty queen and TV presenter, Venezuelan Isabella Rodríguez .

There can be no justification, because there are enough or journalistic sources and videos that confirm that the aforementioned former beauty queen exists, her beginnings, her work as Miss Venezuela 2018, and her subsequent participation, in the important beauty contest, Miss World 2019. There are also sources that this girl suffered bullying and racism, after having won the Miss Venezuela, due to her humble origins, and her skin color. There are also references that after she gave the crown, she began to work on the venevision morning show Portadas. There are elements to consider, so that this article is not eliminated. Greetings and thanks.--Disciplinado (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disciplinado, I would really feel glad if you provide the sources that help the article pass WP:GNG or WP:NMODEL, WP:NACTOR or even WP:ANYBIO ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added more references or sources, such as press, reports and videos, for their respective verification. I also had to eliminate the profession of actress, since there is no reference to clarify that she has done such artistic work. .. Greetings--Disciplinado (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not convinced by the keepers above. No one has tried to argue how the subject meets notability criterias like WP:GNG or WP:NMODEL or even WP:ANYBIO. Just anything? ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TheAafi

WP:ANYBIO

“1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.”

Isabella Rodríguez recived the Miss Venezuela 2018 title. As I said previously, the Miss Venezuela title is the most important, longest and well-known national beauty contest in Venezuela and is one the most important beauty pageant contest in the world & above all Latam.

For example, every Miss USA winner has her own Wikipedia page without any problem.

Plus, Rodríguez participated in the 2019 Miss World edition keeping the Top 40 and as others 2019 Miss World contestants , many of them have their articles.

Talking about the other 2 points:

“2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.

3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography).”

Yes, the other 2 conditions only cover the historical aspect as a particular data. However, these 3 conditions do not have to be met for an item to be preserved. In fact, Wikipedia itself establishes that none of these 3 criteria can be met and even then a Wikipedia article can be maintained or that the 3 criteria are met and still the article should not be preserved. They are subjective criteria to the librarian and not standardized.

Even so, these criteria are very subjective: “meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.”

Despite of that, Rodríguez's importance in the world of beauty pageants is considerable and it is sustainable.

---

WP:BLP1E

“Subjects notable only for one event We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:”

"1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event."

The first event for which she was known was the Miss Venezuela pageant, but she also have gained popularity as a host of diverse events.

“2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual."

She's not a low profile individual. She’s also a TV Host in the longest magazine program in Venezuela, Portada's & Super Sábado Sensacional. Rodríguez also has more than 250k followers in a verified Instagram count and has a very persistent appearance in national television.

"3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.”

Has been really significant and persistent and has a well documented information as you can see in the references (newspapers and webpages) had mention to her.

---

WP:GNG

“General notability guideline”

“A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject:”

"Significant coverage"

"Reliable"

"Sources"

"Independent of the subject"

"Presumed"

The article meets with these conditions and they can be perfectly checked in the references of the article. The secondary sources come mostly from publications that handle national information at a general level, not only on beauty contests. And the information is not based solely on blogs or personal web pages.

For these reason: I request the removal of “Articles of deletion”.

Thanks. --Mauriziok (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't agree with BLP1E in this case. In Latin America the Miss World is like Super Bowl for the US. There is no need to participate more than once to become a celebrity. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Alexandermcnabb. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr.KBAHT. Semi-finalist in a major model competition. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winner of Miss Venezuela 2018, and Miss Venezuela is the most successful National beauty pageant in the world. She also placed Semi-finalist at Miss World 2019. Really meet WP:GNG. Bonutra (talk) 7:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep Per criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. The national title holder of a major beauty pageant with wide media coverage would fall under that category. WP:ONEEVENT doesn’t apply because title holders have reigning responsibilities (ie public speeches, public service, appearances at major events and on tv, etc.) that get press coverage typically over a year long period after they win. Not to mention the international pageant as well.4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Republicanism in the United Kingdom#Political parties. There is (narrowly) consensus to not cover this as a separate article, but with substantial opposition. In light of that, as a compromise I'm redirecting to where it is already covered instead of deleting, allowing content to be merged from the history. Sandstein 10:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Labour for a Republic[edit]

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

This article fails Wikipedia notability requirements, uses bad sources, and has an author who is too close to the organization. I am fine with merging the content into a general article concerning Republicanism in the UK, but this organization does not warrant its own article. Additionally, it fails WP:NOT; this article is being used as a means of promotion and self-advertising. Auror Andrachome (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes, I was involved with the organisation, and declared my potential conflict of interest, but I'm not involved with it now. There was already an attempt after creation to have it merged with the Republicanism in the United Kingdom article. I then added more sources, and it has stayed for over two years, until Auror Andrachome, an editor with only 242 edits since 2010, decided to start merging it again. The editor then reverted attempts to restore it. User:Mikehawk10 last reverted this merger, saying "This redirect is controversial. Open an AFD if you believe the article's topic is not notable, but please stop warring over whether or not this ought to be a redirect". Auror Andrachome reverted this article being restored twice in 24 hours, and a third time within 48 hours. Even if they did not think the organisation merited an article, engaging in edit warring isn't the way to build consensus over this. It may be a fair point for them to argue that the number of page views does not confer notability, but at the same time, it can't be overlooked: the article has had 21,450 views since its creation in February 2019, averaging over 1,000 views a month over the last three months. The organisation itself may be minor, although it has been reported on in the media, and I also think it's a good place for discussing the Labour Party's history of republicanism more generally. I think merging the whole article into Republicanism in the UK would make the latter too long. Auror Andrachome claims that by me being a member of another republican organisation, Republic, I am too close to the subject. Plenty of editors who are members of political organisations edit articles on those subjects, they just don't declare it on their user page - as I have done.--TrottieTrue (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's subject has been subject of in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources, and thus passes WP:GNG. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Existing content of an article is irrelevant in determining notability at AfD. The mere fact that there is a significant tendency of republicanism within the alternative governing party of the UK which runs at around twice the rate of the general population is notable.^[1] I could see the article more usefully being about republicanism in the Labour Party in general, there is more than adequate RSing to establish this as an issue deserving of an article in its own right,^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] but there are still adequate reliable sources for the current campaign itself.^[8]^[9]^[10]

References

^ Norbauer, Ryan; Studlar, Donley T. (2011). "Monarchy and the British Political Elite: Closet Republicans in the House of Commons". Comparative Politics. 43 (2): 225–242. ISSN 0010-4159.
^ Kirk, Neville (2005). "The Conditions of Royal Rule: Australian and British Socialist and Labour Attitudes to the Monarchy, 1901-11". Social History. 30 (1): 64–88. ISSN 0307-1022.
^ Taylor, Antony (1999). Down with the Crown': British Anti-monarchism and Debates about Royalty since 1790. Reaktion Books. ISBN 978-1-78023-156-3. NB Chapter 7: The Labour Party and the Failure of English Republicanism 1917-1999
^ O. Morgan, Kenneth (15 October 2003). "The Labour Party and British Republicanism". E-rea (1.2). doi:10.4000/erea.347.
^ "Just how republican is Jeremy Corbyn?". www.spectator.co.uk. 29 August 2015.
^ Foote, G. (1997). The Labour Party's Political Thought: A History. Springer. ISBN 978-0-230-37747-9.
^ Hood, Andrew; Benn, Tony (2013). Common Sense. Random House. ISBN 978-1-4481-6512-4.
^ "Republicans Rally As Queen Celebrates Birthday". Sky News. 9 June 2016.
^ "Republicans provoke Labour". www.standard.co.uk. 10 April 2012.
^ "The secret life of Labour's republicans". BBC News. 24 September 2014.

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I might have missed something since there's a lot of sources here, but it looks like this fails WP:NORG, and books from 2011 can't talk about an organisation founded in 2012. There's lots of possible sources talking about Labour and republicanism, but this is about a very minor part of the party, the BBC article doesn't talk about the specific organisation significantly, and the other sources are lacking. Note my delete !vote only goes towards this being a stand-alone page about a non-notable organisation: there may be other places to move or merge some of the content on the page, as a topic on republicanism in the party may be notable, but this is not the right place for it. SportingFlyer T·C 23:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Describes a minority movement within the party. Topic can be covered at Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Political_parties, however having a separate article would be a case of WP:UNDUE weight. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The 2012 and 2014 articles about attempts to start this group and the brief mention of a picnic they were organising in 2016 are effectively describing their non-notability rather than demonstrating the reverse. As others have said, the Republicanism in the United Kingdom article is a broader and better context and already has a brief mention of this group. Fails to demonstrate WP:NORG. AllyD (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other organisations/groups affiliated to political parties have their own articles. Labour is the main party of opposition and republicanism is growing, so this article is significant. Denham331 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really apply here, though - this is a specific organisation within the party which clearly fails to meet our notability guidelines for organisations. I think some voters are conflating the topic of "Republicanism within Labour" (which may well be notable) with this specific, founded-in-2012 sub-organisation (which is not.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A lot of this article seems to be about the history of republicanism in the Labour Party rather than this specific organisation, which is a fairly recent development. The history of the Labour Party figures (like Keir Hardie and Tony Benn) and groups' views on whether Britain should be a republic is possibly notable enough for an article so perhaps retitling and slightly refocusing the article might be a way forward instead of deletion? Dunarc (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunarc: As I noted in my delete comment above, I think refocusing would make this a viable article, and it seems like several other votes have voted on the possible refocusing, but I don't want this article kept on that technicality when the specific organisation the rest of the history is coatracked onto is clearly not notable. Maybe merging the historical information to Republicanism in the United Kingdom would work as a starter, and then maybe splitting that into a Labour page if it's large enough? SportingFlyer T·C 00:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @SportingFlyer: Thanks for that. I basically agree with your concerns. I would certainly say the article as it stands is not primarily about the specific organisation it is supposed to be about and from what I can see the organisation does not clearly meet notability standards. I would have no problem with approach you suggest. There is quite a lot of duplicated content between this and the current republicanism in the UK article anyway so perhaps a split would only be needed in the future if that article gets bigger. Dunarc (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with this article being renamed as "Republicanism in the Labour Party (UK)", with a section on the group Labour for a Republic. That way it can keep much of the content, which is clearly of interest to many readers, even if the group itself may not yet be. I don’t mind restructuring the article to reflect the new title and focus.—TrottieTrue (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge back. This is a movement in a party, more than an intendent group. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This won't seem like a very original contribution to the discussion but here goes: the subject fails both WP:GNG (no in-depth coverage whatsoever) and WP:NORG (on all counts). When the actual subject (not discussing present content but the subject) is isolated by removing the padding that artificially inflates the scope of the article, this is made more clear (see: ver; compare with a previous version at the time of the keep !votes: ver). Note: I disagree with an implication coming from the delete side that a minority movement or a fringe movement does not deserve an article in general -- this specific group (mostly on the social media) doesn't. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles at List of organisations associated with the Labour Party (UK) which would fail notability requirements by these standards, such as Labour Muslim Network.—TrottieTrue (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- that's eminently possible — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW I kind of went ahead and produced what I think is a good end state for the content of this article, within the Republicanism in the United Kingdom; you can see my reasoning in the diffs. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion admits that the topic "may lack WP:SIGCOV", which makes it into an argument for deletion. Sandstein 19:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Documents on the History of Religion and Law of Pre-modern Nepal[edit]

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

Non-notable research project. Fails WP:GNG. None of the references provide in depth, independent coverage of the project - the sources are almost all from the university or written by the people involved in the project.

The article was deleted under WP:G11 but reinstated, seemingly as the author could not see how it only served to promote the project. I had tagged specific issues in the deleted version. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Clearly an attempt to promote the project, as was recreated almost immediately after the original piece was deleted due to advertising. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a copy edit. The project with rare 60,000 historic documents including its translation cannot be considered a non-notable project. It may lack WP:SIGCOV, but this project definitely is signifiant, not only for itself, but also as a research material for other encyclopedic articles. Copy edit is necessary to simplify the content and make it more accessible to other readers -especially for those who can use this article as a starting point for history related research of Nepal. nirmal (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nirmaljoshi: This sounds like arguing that its important. For the subject to be notable, it has to have been written about in depth by reliable, independent sources. Where's the evidence that this is the case? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer, May be, but the fact remains so. nirmal (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:47, 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) 19:34, 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. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 17:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wubbzy's Big Movie![edit]

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

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

Wow! Wow! Wow! There's no! no! no! WP:SIGCOV of these two topics. Even sources specializing in animation give you scrap to nothing. The best you'll get for these is a passing mention on AWN.com, self-published blogs, and a review from the Dove foundation (every crappy low-budget kids film gets a positive review from them, even Norm of the North, plus any evangelist source will be unreliable). Wubbzy's Big Movie? More like Wubbzy's No-Source Movie. In the articles' defense, the films are of a notable series, and one of them stars Beyonce, but WP:Notability is not inherited. They instantly fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, plus also violate WP:ORG in assuming Wubb Idol is a sequel to Big Movie!. Redirect to the series at best, but at worst, Delete! Delete! Delete! 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! Could be better summarized in the show article than here; the article is a grammatical mess, but this project no doubt does exist. Nate • (chatter) 20:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote! to Redirect to List of Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! episodes#TV films / specials Described short and sweet there. Nate • (chatter) 00:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, while the article needs major work, I did find a review at Dove (which is recognized as a reliable source) here:[[1]]. If another can be found, it would definitely pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what we have now, I'll say merge both. The Dove review is just a single paragraph under the official promotional blurb. It's something, but it is nothing like a full review. No other references have been offered yet and the Google links above don't look promising on a quick inspection. Even if these "movies" got released on DVD, I feel that we should treat them as extended episodes of the TV show unless there is proof that they are more than that. After all, the normal episodes got released on DVD too. If better references can be found then that could swing it towards a keep. If the DVDs made a significant showing on the sales charts then that would help. If the media took a significant interest in Beyoncé's involvement (which you would think that they would) then that would help. Some more in-depth reviews would help. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Big Movie!, from what I understand, is probably not even a movie. From what I understand, it's a one-hour special that is basically a episodic set of plots with a "main" storyline going along side them throughout. That one basically is an extended episode. Also, Wubb Idol was aired as part of a set of five continuous episodes, with Wubb Idol being the last of them. They definitely are extended episodes. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment despite the comments in the nomination The Dove Foundation is a reliable source for non controversial subjects such as film reviews and is a rotten tomatoes critic. Ive seen them give very negative reviews with no mention of religion and to suggest that an evangelical source is unreliable per se is a biased and prejudiced opinion that is not worthy of Wikipedia in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I do admit to being biased in my Dove comment. It's just that, from what I've heard, evangelical sources in general have a tendency to cover "the truth" according to religion rather than what is actually reality. I will say, however, that I would allow considered-unreliable source for media reviews as long as its bias making its other coverage unreliable don't affect the reliability of "reviews" (though honestly subjective pieces are biased in the first place so I don't know how opinions of things could be unreliable). I would definitely allow film and music reviews from otherwise found-to-be unreliable tabloids, because they're considered unreliable only for real-life coverage that doesn't analyze or have a viewpoint on fiction i.e. The New York Post, The Daily Mail, the Daily Star, etc. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given this critical review of Wubbzy's Big Movie! in The Globe and Mail, a reliable newspaper. That, plus the Dove review, should be helpful for writing an encyclopedic section on the film's reception. There is coverage of Beyoncé's role in Wubb Idol, including in USA Today ("Beyonce takes a shine to Nick's 'Wubbzy!'") and The Washington Times ("A 'Wow!' for Beyonce"). DanCherek (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't doubt the Globe and Mail review. However, the Washington Times and USA Today examples are only WP:ONEVENT upon-release news announcements that isn't real coverage and could be considered PR. Any popular celebrity will be announced guest starring in a film or episode even if said film or episode isn't very notable; the USA Today and WashTime sources are examples of this, as they are brief pieces focusing on Beyonce's involvement and nothing else, adding nothing significant to the topic's notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DanCherek, though I confess to being amused by the nomination statement. Both reviews are quite short, so there's an argument to be made about the degree to which they're SIGCOV. You can hold around a hundred words as a reasonable minimum for what constitutes SIGCOV, though, and the Globe & Mail review passes it, while the Dove one is close. (Considering the OP statement about Dove being a generous reviewer, is that overgenerosity covered in any RSes itself to attribute to in the article?) Vaticidalprophet 16:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer the question about the overgenerosity, No, it's just something I've noticed in my time learning about terrible animated family films barely anyone knows about. I've seen some bad movies Saberspark and Cinema Snob review on Youtube that get positive Dove reviews. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Wow! Weak keep Although I wasn't able to find any sources myself, I did have a look at DanCherek's Globe & Mail review-- we're walking a very fine line here, but I think that the review is enough to keep this article. Just barely, but it's still a valid source. 🐍Helen🐍 20:38, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conspirituality[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and if does barely meet it (I dont think so personally), this is no more than a wiktionary entry. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article unambiguously meets WP:GNG due to the presence of multiple reliable sources that focus on the concept of conspirituality itself, including Ward and Voas's journal article and multiple news reports. The argument that it is currently no more than a wiktionary entry is irrelevant relative to deletion policy, since the presence of long journal articles and news articles provides ample room to expand the article. Per WP:ATD, deletion should not be used on articles that currently are too barebones but could be improved via editing. DaysonZhang (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is backed up by multiple reliable sources. X-Editor (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google shows that the neologism appears to get traction. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM or merge and redirect to Conspiracy_theory#Types. Per our policy: "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted." A Google News search for "Conspirituality" returns several hundred hits on first check, however, after eliminating instances of it simply being referred to in "Also read" references on Yahoo circling back to the same article and similar appearances, there are just 19 hits in the last 16 years [2], of which five are references to the name of a guy's podcast [3] and three are non-RS Medium blog posts. My sample of many of the rest seem to indicate they're largely fleeting or one-off invocations of the term. Chetsford (talk) 05:18, 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) 19:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article has for sources Vice, ABC Opinion post, paper whose authors email address in the source is literally [email protected], Jarry (university primary source), & local Portland, Maine 'magazine' looking like a blog. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviuously notable and receiving significant discussion in both academic and media circles: A simple search on Google Books and JSTOR shows it has been in use by academics since at least 2016. Given the nominator's repeated attempts to scrub Wikipedia's JP Sears article of any and all mention of the article subject's outspoken involvement with conspirituality circles and how widely this term is now used, particularly in media sources (as a simple Google News search reveals), it's difficult to take this nomination as made in good faith (there's now tons of stuff like this, for example). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the previous AfD resulted in delete in 2011, it's an indication that the term already existed. But today it's clearly notable, here are more sources, easily found in a minute: https://theconversation.com/yes-religion-plays-a-more-prominent-role-in-politics-but-secular-australia-has-always-been-a-myth-160107 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/technology/yoga-teachers-take-on-qanon.html https://www.abc.net.au/religion/covid-conspiracies-and-conspirituality/12760976 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/why-are-women-more-hesitant-to-get-the-covid-19-vaccine-1.4558428 https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/apr/16/a-riveting-tale-of-electoral-podcasts-of-the-week https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/03/29/qanon-new-age-spirituality/ —Paleo Neonate – 21:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for WP:GNG. In addition to the refs used in the article, I found:
- The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movemements, Volume II (2016), has at least several paragraphs on it (on the one page visible in GB...can't see the preceding or subsequent page to see how much further their coverage goes)
- Handbook of Nordic New Religions (2015)
- Toronto Star article "The rise of 'conspirituality"
- Journal of Contemporary Religion paper "Conspirituality Reconsidered"
- Another Toronto Sun article, "Peace, love AND misunderstanding: 'Conspirituality' is an apparently paradoxical alliance between conspiracy theorists and New Agers"
- Washington Post article, "QAnon's Unexpected Roots in New Age Spirituality"
- Haaretz article discussing "Israel's conspirituality scene" (that's a quote from the article, the article title is "Iranian Accounts, Russian Tactics and Q: Israel Has Become a Disinformation Battlefield")
  Schazjmd (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources that specifically discuss this topic to justify an article, as demonstrated by the above sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 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 no consensus. The situation has clearly changed since the nomination was made nearly a month ago, with the player apparently having played for the national team and potentially meeting the relevant notability guideline now. Without any further participation despite multiple relists, it seems that (a) the nomination's rationale is no longer factually correct but (b) nobody's directly argued to keep the article on the basis of now passing WP:NRU#3. This discussion has not reached a useful consensus, but if there are enduring notability issues I'd suggest a new nomination detailing them. ~ mazca ^talk 15:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Phillips[edit]

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

Fail of WP:NRU. Doesn't play in a notable fully professional rugby union competition or a High Performance Union. nearlyevil 665 17:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 17:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 17:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 17:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi there, the player does now meet WP:NRU, he is playing for the Ireland national sevens team, the player meets point 3. MunsterFan2011 (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could someone confirm that receiving a call up is equivalent to 'playing for a team'. My understanding is that he has yet to play and might be either benched or unable to play for the team due to whatever reason (like an injury). nearlyevil 665 17:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nearlyevil665: it looks like Phillips has now played for a team in a way that may meet WP:NRU#3. Does that change the situation from what you described in the initial nomination? — Bilorv (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Has yet to appear for the Irish 7s side so currently fails WP:NRU. I don't think we include this Olympic repecharge (qualifying) events as a notable tournament in the guidelines either. Unless more sourcing can be found for GNG I'd recommend draftifying until he passes NRU. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:45, 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) 19:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The player now definitely meets point 3 of WP:NRU...MunsterFan2011 (talk) 11:01, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Dorothy Society[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG; coverage consists of trivial mentions and coverage in limited-interest publications. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NORG and GNG. I cannot find any in-depth coverage of this org in RS. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found one reliable secondary source[4] but one is not enough for inclusion Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Peter303x (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First High-School Education Group[edit]

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

Publicly-listed company, but no evidence of notability (and listing in itself isn't inherently notable, per WP:LISTED). The sources cited are two copies of something evidently based on a press release, some market reports, and a website that may or may not relate to the company in question but in any case is a primary source. Search finds more of the same, as one would expect for listed companies, but nothing that isn't related to the IPO, SEC filings, market prices, or other such routine reporting; nothing that comes even close to sigcov. If someone can come up with Chinese etc. sources that establish notability, I'm happy to be corrected; as it stands, this fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, there is no evidence of notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This article fails the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Chetsford (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As to the userspace copy at User:OcelotCreeper/2001, I am deleting that per WP:G12 (copyright violation) because it lacks the attribution required by the Creative Commons license. A consensus to delete an article at AfD cannot be frustrated by one editor copying some of the content elsewhere. Sandstein 20:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2001: A Space Odyssey trivia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural listing, on which I am not (currently) taking a position. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 19#List of 2001: A Space Odyssey trivia for context. This article was redirected for several years. A recent RfD failed to find consensus for deletion. My sense as a closer is that opposition to deletion was more on procedural grounds than substantial ones. One editor in that discussion was comfortable with the status quo, but most favored sending it here or deleting it outright. BDD (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging RfD participants in the interests of thoroughness: User:OcelotCreeper, User:Shhhnotsoloud, User:Thryduulf, User:Dominicmgm, User:Compassionate727, User:Zxcvbnm, User:UppercutPawnch, User:Vaticidalprophet. Unless you see me vote below, I am not watching this page, so please ping me if needed. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ As the nominator for the RfD, if this is to be kept, it should be to look over the content to see what can be merged into 2001: A Space Odyssey (film), what can't, and what is already in there.

For example: "A four-year-old Vivian Kubrick, Stanley Kubrick's daughter, had an uncredited guest role as Floyd's daughter "squirt" to whom he speaks via videophone from Space Station 5" is mentioned in the cast section. Mentioning that he was communicating with her on the Space Station 5 is unnecessary, and anyone who notices this part of the cast list would put two-and-two together the she is related to Stanley Kubrick. In other words, nothing to add in, so delete.

"There are five birthdays in the film (in chronological order): Humankind; Dr. Floyd's daughter; Astronaut Frank Poole; computer HAL's "operational" birthday (January 12, 1992); the Starchild is born" is completely WP:FANCRUFT. Maybe on the IMDB trivia page (it isn't so far), but definitely not on Wikipedia. Delete.

"The original scripted ending has the Star Child set off the orbiting nuclear devices seen (though not explained) in the "Blue Danube" sequence. Kubrick concluded this was too similar to the ending of Dr. Strangelove and so opted for the more ambiguous and optimistic ending scene. In his book The Making of Kubrick's 2001, Jerome Agel explained this, making note of the meaning of the intentional irony of the song sung at the ending of Dr. Strangelove: "We WON'T Meet Again"." is mostly mentioned. The Jerome Agel bit maybe. The Blue Danube part, while I haven't heard of, wouldn't be too surprising if it was true, given when the music starts playing in the credits.

Also, if this is to be done, sourcing has to be properly added. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now that I copied the content onto here so I or anyone interested can overlook for material to possibly merge into 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). OcelotCreeper (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article can serve no purpose anymore... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not IMDB. (Yes, I realise this article has history). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am expecting this to be deleted, but I think it's too soon to call WP:SNOW. OcelotCreeper (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- And what speedy deletion criterion applies? Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if content is merged this page will need to be kept as a redirect (at some title) for attribution purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I know "trivia" articles are no longer allowed on Wikipedia, as trivial content goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are four paragraphs at WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Which do you think applies best? Hint: none of them do. Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: This is Wikipedia, not Cracked. - Sumanuil (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And what speedy deletion criterion applies? Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Comment After looking through everything in a userfied version, I've determined only 2 things that could possibly be in the article. Process of elimination included stuff already in the article, stuff is not mentioned in the main article, but in subarticles like Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey or articles about the cast and crew, and stuff that is WP:FANCRUFT.

First was Ronnie Corbett being offered the role of one of the apes, only to turn it down. He confirmed this on The Graham Norton Show, so any source already in the article, or one that states this fact referencing the Graham Norton Show will do.

Second was that Sarah Cracknell was going to be the Star Child before a doll was used instead, but I can't find sources on Google that came out before the first AfD, except IMDB, but that doesn't require sourcing, so unless there's a commentary or book where this is mentioned, this might also be best not in the article. OcelotCreeper (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to the film article all the sourced content that can be integrated into the article per WP:TRIVIA. I'd recommend comparing to the IMDB trivia page, to see if some of these items might have been copied to/from there; when in doubt, we should probably err on the side of not hosting possible copyright violations, and eliminate duplicates with IMDBs trivia list. The film was groundbreaking, and the fact that a lot of oddities have received coverage is not a reason to knee-jerk react against including things as encyclopedically as possible. That is, even though I "get" the desire to kill it with fire because it looks bad, I believe the correct response is far more nuanced. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the problem is with the word "trivia" in the title. It seems to be used to mean "miscellany" rather than "trivial things". If something is trivial it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and if it's not trivial then it is not trivia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's truth to that, and this misapprehension underlies a number of the !votes above. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia (by article title) RJFJR (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Now that this has been copied and pasted to User:OcelotCreeper/2001, we cannot simply delete this page, as it provides history necessary for copyright attribution. Thus, if there is found to be a consensus to delete, this must actually be performed by moving this article to User:OcelotCreeper/2001 without leaving a redirect. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Dream Focus 23:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus Why redirect there? OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like trivia to me. Someone searching for a list of 2001's trivia would want to go there. Or maybe go to the trivia at 2001: A Space Odyssey in popular culture. Perhaps just link it to 2001: A Space Odyssey (disambiguation). Dream Focus 03:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively I very much agree with Jclemens. Or, as WP:TRIVIA says, "Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles" and so forth. Daranios (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BF Homes Caloocan#Schools. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Infant Montessori Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BF Homes Caloocan#Schools. My searching finds nothing non-trivial, but redirects are cheap, so directing the reader to the neighborhood's article (where the school is already mentioned) would seem to be a reasonable alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 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) 22:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Avdheshanand Giri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Avdheshanand Giri on 29 March 2021. A deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 26 closed as relist. I am performing this relist as a neutral administrative action.

Some courses of action in the process so far have tended to make it difficult to achieve consensus. Therefore in this debate, which I hope will be conclusive, I would urge participants to:

Be open to opinions other than their own
Focus on providing a high quality of sources rather than a high quantity
Refrain from expecting sources to be in English language

Stifle (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the bilingual source analysis I conducted in the previous AFD which has not been refuted either at the AFD or the deletion review. The sources presented newly at the DR were only minor mentions. No new sources showing WP:GNG have been forthcoming. VV 11:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep source analysis has been duly refuted at the previous AFD nomination by several editors and also at deletion review. The newly presented sources were not minor mentions, they are very much in sync with WP:GNG and that too has been duly explained in the Deletion Review. The notability of the subject is very much evident through the independent media sources presented in the article. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Shatbhisha6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Swami Avdheshanand Giri ji is one of the most revered Hindu personality. (Personal attack removed) His collaborators should be punished by the top editors as they are harming the spirit of Wikipedia. This page is a must to be at Wikipedia as millions of users search for a great personality like him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit Srivastava (talk • contribs) 12:19, 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. Enough sources are available to qualify for notability. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Narayana Trust[edit]

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

~~Subject fails to meet GNG. No reliable sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)~~ strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Beccaynr (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Books search linked above seems pretty productive. What were the nominator's grounds for dismissing sources such as this? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Phil Bridger, there appear to be adequate sources. Ingratis (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ~~the nom has been blocked for disruptive editing: does that invalidate this nomination? Ingratis (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)~~ temporarily only, apparently, as now unblocked again. Ingratis (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and now blocked again as a sockpuppet. Speedy keep criterion 4 would appear to apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Important topic though underdeveloped. Apart from presence of adequate sources, a sizeable number of links on Wikipedia point to this article. --Gurubrahma (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Narayana College, Kollam[edit]

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

Wikipedia needs to stop being an annotated internet guide. If we cannot produce even one independent source we need to not have an article. Subject completely fails WP: NSCHOOL. Nothing even close to the depth of coverage required to pass WP:NORG, therefore, there is simply no alternative but to delete. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock, see here, user was renamed. --Blablubbs|talk 11:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I totally agree with the nominator. All I could find is a few trivial name drops in school directories and articles about stuff. Nothing that address the subject of the article directly or in-depth though. So this clearly fails WP:NORG or from what I can tell even WP:GNG. Wikipedia isn't a business directory. All that said, the one thing this might have going for it is the notable alumni, but a good portion of them seem to have extremely sketchy notability themselves and I don't think an article just made out of a notable alumni section is worth keeping. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Peter303x (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural keep. Feel free to speedy renominate to AfD if desired. Missvain (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VPM SNDP Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

A private, tertiary institution which has no inherent notability and does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS as no WP:RS satisfying ORGDEPTH was found with a WP:BEFORE. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep due to being nominated by a confirmed and blocked sockpuppet. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Narayana Guru Institute of Science and Technology[edit]

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

~~Article fails WP:NSCHOOL. Subject does not meet GNG. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)~~ strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Beccaynr (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-profits, such as this, do not have to pass the stricter standards of WP:ORG, but only WP:GNG. See WP:NSCHOOL. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per no, WP:1S. Kolma8 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1S is an essay that has garnered hardly any support in well over a decade (see its talk page) and is counter to the whole point of a Wiki. Can we have some opinions based on looking for sources rather than such ignorant clap-trap? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reference in the article is primary and all I could find about it is a brief name drop in an article about long hair. Which doesn't cut it WP:GNG. Let alone WP:NORG. Which IMO would be the proper notability guideline since this is not a mainstream educational institution and from my reading of them the guidelines are clear that none mainstream educational institutions need to pass WP:NORG. We don't even know if this place is for profit or not. Likely it is. To me the "ignorant clap-trap" is trying to treat every single organization with the words "institute" or "education" in them exactly the same by acting as if they are all on exactly the same level as the Harvard's or Indian Institute of Science's of the world just because "there's the words institute and education in the article. So it must be notable." When clearly that's not the standards for notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Does not meet WP:ORG. Peter303x (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D'Enforcas[edit]

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

Possibly fails WP:NMUSIC, with lots of primary sources but only two third-party refs and two awards refs (at least one of which is possibly linked to the act). The article has significant WP:COI issues, and text is not neutral (eg - I removed text such as "...is without a doubt one of the most influential tastemakers...". Much of the (unassociated) material about this act that I can find online is a mirror or unattributed copy of this article. There's also lots of name-dropping (opened for, participating in "events hosted by celebrities", etc.). Mind matrix 14:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A quick Googling brought little to no reliable secondary sources covering this musical act which would help them pass WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NMUSIC. Missvain (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was created by a user named "Mejustik" (check the members section of the band's infobox), and its primary followup editor since then has been a user named "Enforcas", so there's cleary been conflict of interest editing here — but nothing stated in the article is either "inherently" notable enough to pass WP:NMUSIC, or reliably sourced well enough to get them over WP:GNG. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for bands to promote themselves in an advertorialized manner. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 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 redirect to Philippine highway network#Secondary roads. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pulilan Regional Road[edit]

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

Likely an unnotable road. It only contains two sources - one from DPWH and the other from E.O. 194 s. 1939. However, it does only give little information on its route and road features, and the road is more of a provincial road-type (despite labelled as a national secondary highway). It can be redirected to Philippine highway network#Secondary roads if warranted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Philippine highway network. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 00:28, 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) 22:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. Sarngadharan[edit]

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

PROD removed by Phil Bridger. Subject fails WP:NPROF. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Fails GNG and ANYBIO. Had a require clean up tag for 10 years. Kolma8 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a different researcher M. G. Sarngadharan with heavy citations on AIDS and leukemia, but the only significant scholarly work I could find by the one here (a researcher in commerce, not medicine) was a book "Financial Analysis for Management Decisions" with 19 citations in Google Scholar. That's not enough for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and even if the book were itself notable (say because it had multiple in-depth published reviews) the best we might do would be to redirect to an article on it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can someone please explain to me the striking of the nom statement? Dr. Universe (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of an account that was blocked before the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yuma Nakayama#Discography as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Piece[edit]

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

Non-notable topic, various Google and Google News searches yielded no results. Chart positions can be merged into subject article, as chart positions alone are not an indication of notability. Sean Stephens (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sean Stephens (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The artist's article states that the single reached number two on the Oricon chart and has been certified Gold. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ashleyyoursmile: I was aware of that when I nominated it, hence the link to NSONGS :). Chart positions do not guarantee notability. Sean Stephens (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sean Stephens, this comment is so that other editors are aware of this additional piece of information which is obviously not included in the song's article. Ashleyyoursmile! 04:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah I see. Fair enough. I think it's important to note that it is in fact included in the article (albeit unsourced). Hopefully other editors take that under consideration and vote accordingly. Sean Stephens (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yuma Nakayama. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:01, 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 delete. ✗plicit 13:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagan Institute of Management Studies[edit]

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

lack of significant coverage and in-depth information for the organization. Fails WP:ORG GermanKity (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per nom. Fails badly NSCHOOL. Non-notable. Kolma8 (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a private, tertiary, non-degree awarding educational institution that fails to adhere to WP:NSCHOOLS. VV 19:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like Vincentvikram says, this is a private non-degree awarding institution and it clearly fails the notability guidelines. For private educational institutions due to the subpar state of references about it. So, I don't see a guideline based reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Al Ashi[edit]

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

paid for vanity spam sourced to mostly blackhat SEO, interviews and press releases. YODADICAE👽 12:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I've long thought that a tracking category for new bios that mention the word entrepreneur might be a worthwhile idea... AngryHarpy‍^talk 06:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your help and ideas. But it's not a spam, or anything. It's just a bio of a living person that needs to be on Wikipedia, because of the unique idea and project and the awards he has received. Let's all just take our time to read what it's about and appreciate to do something better for the community. I'd really appreciate your help. EdwardMill (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately, obvious vanity article and subject is not notable by any standards. The sources linked are not reputable at all. Also, are we going to ignore that the editor's bio is copied from an account that was banned for being a sock puppet? http://wikipedia.us.nina.az/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1019030755 Transfo47 (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Delete — The sources used in the article barely expressly make reference to him and that in itself is a major red flag. A before search confirmed my suspicion that they weren’t notable. Celestina007 (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the editor has changed their bio from the sockpuppet account's text. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EdwardMill&type=revision&diff=1025622283&oldid=1025393993&diffmode=visual Transfo47 (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional and not needed.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 15:38, 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. ✗plicit 12:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diinoh[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NSINGER nor WP:GNG. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find any sourcing to help this pass WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this qualifies for WP:A7 and WP:G11. Furthermore sources in the article aren’t about the subject. -Xclusivzik (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not A7 ("Diinoh is often referred to as the "king of HipHop" genre" is an assertion of significance), it doesn't rise up to G11 (unless G3), it may qualify for WP:G3 (as a hoax, if this is a hoax, it doesn't appear to pan out when examining/searching for sources - however this isn't obvious from the text itself).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...Notice how each and every phrase/text in the article is identical to Kabza De Small, not to mention the sources. -Xclusivzik (talk) 12:19, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raat Baaki Hai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Need more reviews to become notable. WP:TOOSOON Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of reviews here, including India West, IWM Buzz, BulletNews, FirstPost. Together with the Times of India review, this seems sufficient (certainly with the many announcements, interviews, ... in the previous months, e.g. this). Fram (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Vanij[edit]

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

No indication of notability. References do not show WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NACTOR GermanKity (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks evidence of meeting WP:NACTOR. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails WP:NACTOR. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of meeting NACTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article fails to meet WP:BASIC, WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST --Asketbouncer (talk) 11:40, 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 delete. ✗plicit 10:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Blunt[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surprised at the nom's terse deletion rationale, having looked into the evidence for notability with a WP:BEFORE I now appreciate the nom's terse deletion rationale. Nothing to see here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources supporting that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanaran Gurukkal[edit]

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

~~The subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Fails WP:NBIO. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock, see here, user was renamed. -- Beccaynr (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So this has been created, deleted, and recreated multiple times; like at least 4 creations if not more. The first was an AfC draft which I came across in November; it was accepted into mainspace, but shortly thereafter deleted (it is worth noting that the creator of the original page was confirmed to be a sockpuppet: here's the SPI). The second form, which was created directly into mainspace by the same editor of the current version, was CSD'd a few weeks ago. Curbon7 (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom and Curbon7. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt As per Curbon7. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt WP:PROMO & long term abuse from an ethnic sock. R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 13:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this page is deleted and salted, I would recommend the same fate (salting) for its redirect page Kottakkal Kanaran Gurukkal, as this page has also previously existed under that page's name. Curbon7 (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, should have been speedied. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of modelled aircraft in IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover[edit]

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

The article consists entirely of WP:GAMEGUIDE material and WP:LISTN does not appear to be met as no reliable, secondary source ever discusses all "modelled aircraft" in the game as a group (ed: most sources currently used are not reliable). The list might be better suited for FANDOM than Wikipedia. IceWelder [✉] 07:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 07:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1) Other than a few official announcements taken from the official forum, the dozens of references that support this list come from a rich array of sources not including forums, nor blogs. 2) Both print journalism and digital journalism have shown such a level of interest in this game, now released ten years ago, that the items in the list, these are the aircraft themselves, are regularly treated by the sources (this is self-explanatory : please read the sources). 3) This game, IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover, has been translated into German, French, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Polish and Czech and is played by a worldwide community. This is why this list is supported by sources in at least five different languages: English, French, Spanish, Czech and German (again, please read the sources). All of this sufficiently proves that the list is with no doubt relevant. In fact, to be honest, very few video game related lists can claim such a level of relevance in this encyclopedia. Kintaro (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The game's notability isn't in question, only that of this list, as the fewest sources are reliable and WP:LISTN does not appear to be met. Most importantly, please review WP:GAMEGUIDE. IceWelder [✉] 09:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My three arguments strictly deal with the list only. Noted now in bold letters so that you get some help when reading my explanations. Kind regards. Kintaro (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You provide arguments why the game is notable but project them onto the notability of the list without respect to WP:LISTN. Furthermore, the least of the sources used are reliable per WP:VG/RS and the gravest concern remains WP:GAMEGUIDE, which the article consists entirely of. As Wikipedia is not designed to host such content, I would suggest transferring the list to Wikia/FANDOM or Gamepedia, which is better suited for such content, so your work is not lost. IceWelder [✉] 09:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You provide arguments why the game is notable. This is not acceptable. We can discuss if wether or not my arguments are suitable, but they deal with the list with no doubt, not with the game. Kintaro (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, but IceWielder is correct here. You're not providing a valid argument towards the list articles independent notability, nor are you providing a good counter-argument of GAMECRUFT/GAMEGUIDE/NOT arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Serge, you are missing my point. You're not providing a valid argument towards the list articles independent notability, nor are you providing a good counter-argument of GAMECRUFT/GAMEGUIDE/NOT arguments : this may be true but has nothing to do with You provide arguments why the game is notable. That latter sentence is false and gratuitous. Regards. Kintaro (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Say what you will, look at the other comments. You're not convincing anyone else, let alone a consensus in your favor. It's up to you how you want to handle that information. Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Serge, apparently the list is about to be deleted... and this is not a tragedy, somebody proposed it for deletion and now we simply follow the usual procedure. What I'm doing, if you simply read my interventions in this page, is responding to one specific wrong statement. Regards. Kintaro (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I was being unclear. I meant to say that your central arguments (digital/print journalism for a 10-year-old game, international sources, and a "rich array of sources") do not cover the notability feats required for list articles (per LISTN) but could only pertain to the notability of the game itself (i.e. sustained international coverage of the game = notability). Indeed, some aircraft are discussed individually in some sources (be they reliable or not), but this is not a list notability criterion. Sorry again for the mistunderstanding. IceWelder [✉] 07:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IceWelder, we don't need the aircraft are discussed individually. Reading the sources you'll notice that some aircraft are discussed while others are simply mentioned as what they are: modelled aircraft in IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover, which is the more simple requirement for constituting a reliable source in a list-type page in this encyclopedia, provided that the source complies with our policies. I personally checked every source. All sources are reliable as such and mention the affected model, variant or subvariant of every aircraft in the list. I'm discussing quitely and I'll accept whatever decision is taken by the admin who will settle this discussion, but I sincerely think that you, the "delete" voters, are being misleaded in this case. Kintaro (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's three arguments relating to the list. The game article, in contrast, is as stated certainly notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The game is certainly notable, which is why we have an article on it. This list, however, is complete WP:GAMEGUIDE material, per the arguments presented in the nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is textbook WP:GAMECRUFT, and that says it shouldn't even be in the game's article, let alone its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disclosure: I was brought to this via a post made by Kintaro on WT:VG. That said, others have already made strongly persuasive cases and I completely agree with them. This isn't appropriate for a list article. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook example of WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I would encourage that some broad overview of the general classes (side/manufacturers/models/classes) of planes can be summarized in the main game article based on the handful of non-first party RSes that are in the list article. (Eg "The game and its extended DLC include over one hundred modelled versions of WWII aircraft, with most being available to fly by players, including the Luftwaffe aircraft from Bayerische Flugzeugwerke and Junkers, the Royal Air Force Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane, and others." (I'm eyeballing the larger groupings off the tables). This still gives an idea of the broad scope of craft included but without the detail that GAMEGUIDE discourages. --Masem (t) 16:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:01, 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. ✗plicit 11:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cherian Kuniyandhodathu[edit]

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

~~Article fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:POET. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)~~ strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Beccaynr (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is patent rubbish, subject fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Bhakti Samvardhinini Yogam[edit]

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

~~Non notable charitable organization. Fails GNG. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)~~ strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Beccaynr (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Does not meet WP:ORG. Peter303x (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Narayana Training College[edit]

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

~~Sources found do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and ultimately WP:NORG is not met. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock, see here, user was renamed. -- Beccaynr (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. A staff of 20. There are a number of these Indian articles in existence and they're going to need TNT/cleanup or some policy revision to be allowed, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per nom. Fails NSCHOOL. Non-notable school. Kolma8 (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source in the article is primary, it's written like an advert, they don't seem to award degrees, and from a BEFORE there's just a few trivial names drops about in articles on other stuff. So I don't see a valid reason to keep this. The staff of 20 is a huge tell also that this isn't notable. Wikipedia isn't a business directory and not every tiny educational institution deserve an article "just because." --Adamant1 (talk) 16:57, 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. ✗plicit 11:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oviya MedSafe Pvt. Ltd[edit]

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

Fails NCORP and GNG. I was unable to find any reliable source covering this company in detail, beyond trivial coverage like product launch press releases and brief mentions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Staffers quoted in a couple articles about pharma companies in India and a couple of press releases. Fails WP:ORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per nom. Probably could have PROD it. Non-notable. Nothing on WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 (talk) 16:33, 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 11:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D. Shina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Subject fails WP:NPROF. The article was once deleted by AFD. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock, see here, user was renamed. -- Beccaynr (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is textually very similar to the 2010 deleted version (and was even more similar when it was re-created in 2014) but some of its references are dated later than 2010. Potentially the existence of those references could change the decision from the earlier one, so now that it's started I think we should probably continue the discussion rather than just deleting per G4. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps noteworthy that the 2014 creator of this article, Kollameducation, has extensively - almost exclusively - edited in the areas of Sree Narayana Guru establishments and the Indian Electricity sector. Perhaps not. But the subject is not notable as per WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing available that could be used to argue for WP:Academic. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. No indication of notability here. --hroest 19:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Her work as a columnist for The Hindu seems more prominent than her academic position, but we still do not have evidence of notability (GNG or otherwise), only her own writings. Given the past history of restoring the article in more or less the same form after a deletion discussion, protecting the title so that it has to go through a full DRV before another restoration seems prudent. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails BIO for BLP. NOthing notable to support keeping this article. Kolma8 (talk) 16:34, 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. czar 07:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A War of Ideas[edit]

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

The recording fails WP:NALBUM. The album has not appeared on the national charts of any country, nor has it been certified or received major accolades. I could not find any coverage in multiple reliable independent sources which implies that it falls short of the general notability criteria. Nor could I find any album reviews that could provide independent evidence of notability of the LP and indicate that a standalone article is at all appropriate. Ashley yoursmile! 06:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 06:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 06:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Terrible name of an album to search for. By the second Google page, I was getting articles about vigilantism. AllMusic has only a database entry: https://www.allmusic.com/album/war-of-ideas-mw0001191241 I couldn't find any reliable sources that had more than what was there. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above. Nothing to find out there, article unsourced. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 2:45 pm, Today (UTC+4)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that it meets notability and has no citations. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only found the entry on AllMusic and on Discogs, gets really hard to find anything online. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:48, 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 06:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Bhat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Self-promo article about non-notable film director, the sources cited are either syndicated content based on PR blurb, or else discuss other topics and mention him only in passing, and a search finds nothing beyond social media accounts and directory listings. This has quite a chequered past incl. earlier speedy, so AfD seems needed at this point. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO / WP:FILMMAKER. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CSD would also have worked. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, I don't think it would have, given the history; but all the same, here we are. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe screenwriter of an apparently notable film is a credible claim of significance. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks independent coverage. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails GNG and ANYBIO. Kolma8 (talk) 16:42, 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 06:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Springfield, Missouri mayoral election[edit]

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

Not convinced that this is a notable local election. Several deletion discussions for cities of comparable size over the last few years indicate that things of this size aren't inherently notable. Doesn't appear to have had any lasting effects or attention from a wide geographic scope needed for WP:NEVENT. Hog Farm _Talk 04:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2021 Springfield, Missouri mayoral election also exists, so I assume whatever decision comes of this discussion should affect that page as well. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:52,26 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I can find plenty of garden-variety local press reports, but there's no sign of any of the enduring or geographically broad coverage that would be necessary to meet WP:NEVENT. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:16, 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 redirect to Philippine highway network#Secondary roads. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dau Access Road[edit]

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

An unnotable local road that is just slapped by DPWH with "national highway" designation (national secondary road). Since it has only one source (and that source seems to be connected with the subject itself), the article is best redirected to Philippine highway network#Secondary roads. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Philippine highway network. This is a secondary national route. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mouth of Hector, Kentucky[edit]

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

Another one where GNIS is sourced to Rennick. Looking in Rennick's KY place names book and his Clay County directory, Rennick has a P.O. 5 miles away from this supposed site named Hector, Kentucky and a statement that the Eriline, Kentucky P.O. served the area around the mouth of Hector's Creek. Searching brings up clickbait, GNIS and wikipedia mirrors, and passing mentions to the mouth of Hector's Creek. Topos show Hector's Branch flowing into the Red Bird River at the GNIS coordinates, with essentially no sign of human development. The existance of a supposed "unincorporated community" here is unverifiable. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is very easy once one happens upon State Historic Marker #908, as I did through Bing Images. This rivermouth was the original site of the Red Bird River Petroglyphs and the murder of the Red Bird for whom the Red Bird River is named. It is not a community, and people do not live there. There is a parking lot on the opposite bank of Red Bird River to the creek mouth where the marker used to be. Tankersley is an associate professor of archaeological geology at the University of Cincinnati.
(For completeness, I note that Rennick 2016a goes straight from "MOUTHCARD" to "MUDDY FORD" and the "HECTOR" in Rennick 2016b is the post office 5 miles away. Rennick 2016c has the 1898 apocryphal, since corrected by Tankersley, version of the tale and the creek mouth under "RED BIRD RIVER".)
Uncle G (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Tankersley, Kenneth Barnett (September 2006). "Red Bird (Dotsuwa) and the Cherokee History of Clay County, Kentucky". Appalachian Quarterly.
- Tankersley, Kenneth Barnett; Weeks, William Rex (April 2020). "Red Bird and Sequoyah: A Reply to Simek et al". American Antiquity. 85 (2): 383–387. doi:10.1017/aaq.2020.4.
- Tankersley, Kenneth Barnett; Weeks, William Rex (August 2015). "Talking leaves and rocks that teach: The archaeological discovery of Sequoyah's oldest written record". Antiquity. 85 (329): 978–993. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00068435.
- Rennick, Robert M. (2016). "Place Names Beginning with the Letter M". Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection (23). Morehead State University.
- Rennick, Robert M. (2016). "Place Names Beginning with the Letter H". Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection (11). Morehead State University.
- Rennick, Robert M. (2016). "Clay County — Place Names". Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection (53). Morehead State University.
Delete. The topo map does not have a place name at this location, but GNIS says it is a historical populated place, which is plausible. The map shows a couple of buildings, the New Hector Church not far away and the Jesse Bowling Cemetery (shown but unnamed and not in GNIS). Rennick 2016c says Eriline Post Office (historical) would have been serving the Mouth of Hector Creek, so there were people living there. Probably valid as an entry for a list of populated places in Clay County, if there were one, but not enough for an article. (I think the murder of Red Bird was at the mouth of Jack Creek, just east on the other side of the river.) Aymatth2 (talk) 17:01, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan Chris Murphy[edit]

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

Was deleted through prod earlier this month. A working sound engineer, and there are quite a few hits for him. However, I can't find any in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG, and does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Owlf (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock, see here, user was renamed. --Blablubbs|talk 11:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom . No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NMUSIC -Xclusivzik (talk) 13:56, 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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about California[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Crufty, unmaintainable mess. Lots of non-notable bands and songs, almost entirely unsourced. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even with better sourcing, this is too broad a category to make a useful list. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The list has existed for over 15 years, is now quite substantial and gets about 200 views every day. The equivalent category only gets about 1% of that traffic and so the list is not only working in a useful way, it is crushing the opposition. "California über alles!" Andrew🐉(talk) 09:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but restrict to notable songs. "15 Best Songs About California" (Billboard), "What's Your Favorite California Song?" (New York Times), "27 Songs For A California State Of Mind" (BuzzFeed), etc. satisfy WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has already been discussed here and the result was keep. This fresh nomination is not policy-based and clearly doesn't pass WP:BEFORE. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." "All the leaves are brown..." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last nomination was 9 years ago. You are acting like it was two weeks ago. Consensus can change, and surviving an AfD doesn't grant an article lifetime immunity if the issues persist. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion at the previous nomination. The article passes WP:NLIST and while it could use some discussion about restricting the scope (as suggested in the closing of the previous AfD) and better sourcing that's not a reason to delete it. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll pass on an actual vote (undecided), but valid points were made in both nominations about this list being an unmanageable mess. Just by browsing near the top of the list I found songs that are not about California as the list title implies, but only name-drop the state once or twice in the lyrics (e.g. "Breakfast in America" by Supertramp); others that use the state merely as a metaphor for larger social/political critiques (e.g. "AEnima" by Tool); and others that merely use the state's name for a fictional character (e.g. "Dani California" by Red Hot Chili Peppers). Yes, it has been argued that lots of WP users have viewed this list for many years, but that's not a convincing stat if all they get is a poorly-defined pile of loose listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it's certainly a mess, but it's never too late to fix it. I've decided to remove content not needed in the page, such as songs about Los Angeles, as it already has it's own page, List of songs about Los Angeles, and even created List of songs about San Francisco Bay Area page. I've decided that once I have spare time later today to actually reorganize the article the same way it's organized as the List of songs about Los Angeles. Cheers. JayzBox (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (I was a reluctant keep at last discussion). ‘I'd be safe and warm/If I was in LA/California dreamin'/On such a winter's day’ is not really about California is it? And that song made the Billboard Top songs about California. So many of the entries are included because WP:SHAREDNAME rather than any WP:5P reason. Without any control on content the whole list becomes WP:TRIVIA and should be deleted.

I will change my vote IF I see some work to remove the cruft, the ridiculous, the unreferenced and the non-notable. Otherwise those that are voting! keep are merely voting to keep article titles, irrespective of content. If the content is rubbish, the number of views are irrelevant (Are people looking at the article to laugh at the reliability of WP?).

It is 9 years since the last nomination, policies and opinions change, hardly disruptive, however, accusing other editors of disruptive editing... --Richhoncho (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Also per WP:LISTN. Otinflewer (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, pure trivia. The relevant category seems sufficient to cover this topic. Waxworker (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDUPE says clearly that " the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists ... arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Andrew🐉(talk) 16:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ndup also says "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative". If it cannot be demonstrated that the list is beneficial in ways the category is not, then they're plainly not complementary, and dupe is a perfectly valid argument. Dupe "should be avoided" as a standalone argument, provided without any additional context context; that doesn't mean it's inherently invalid. Avilich (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a fair number of AfDs for list articles in which someone brings this up. "We can't delete the list because there is a corresponding category" or vice-versa. That argument is pure bureaucracy, even if it is in an official WP policy. The tradition that a list should be kept because there is an equivalent category, or a category should be kept because there is an equivalent list, has saddled WP with a lot of sloppy and pointless categories AND lists. And that's why this one may survive for purely bureaucratic reasons. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The above weak keep voter's suggestion to display only notable entries is already fulfilled by the category, since most of the existing pages there will already comply with the wp:notability guideline. Avilich (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NLIST per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Richhoncho reasoning. It's just trivia. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was honestly on the fence about this one. I was initially going to vote keep as there are sources that discuss California songs as a group (and that would seemingly satisfy WP:NLIST), but I was convinced by Richhoncho's above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection and listcruft that's too hard to maintain even with appropriate sourcing. We're better off instead discussing lyrics about California within the individual song articles. The sheer length of time this page has existed isn't a convincing argument to keep (irrelevant to merits of the content itself), and same goes for viewership statistics. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I already made two comments above but declared myself undecided on a vote. After reading the reasoning in everyone else's votes, I find the "delete" votes backed up by the WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRUFT standards to be much more convincing, as opposed to those who think the article should be kept just for bureaucratic reasons involving page stats and category titles. My vote is now to delete. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A category page will suffice if necessary. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete: What this page needs is for someone to be bold and expand this list. Clarityfiend has identified above that this page should, in theory, pass NLIST, but there's been no effort put into in the first place. All of the unsourced/poorly sourced entries should be removed, and this page should be watched heavily if kept. I have archived the page if anyone needs anything in this for future reference (in the event this page is deleted). I will change my vote if vast improvements are made. Sean Stephens (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is my !vote, make a new start / going to AfD with an aching in my heart / Someone told me there's an encyclopedia / with love in its eyes and freedom in its media. In all seriousness, this is a travesty. There's a lot of songs about California, and people like to listen to them, and people want to read a list of them. The key attribute that entries in the list possess is easily verifiable, the songs and artists are notable; I don't think it would be by any means impossible to make this into a perfectly legitimate list that even the most hard-hearted among us agreed to have encyclopedic value. I will gladly take up the mantle of being the one Don Quixote who !votes "keep" on an almost certainly doomed AfD, because I think it's important to have goofy stuff here. This is what separates us from paper encyclopedias, from stodgy lifeless piles of dead trees, from robotically assembled compendia of factoids generated procedurally from data ingest. It's what gets people interested in learning, it's what makes them decide to stick around and dive deeper. Look, kid -- history can be fun sometimes. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of our own editors didn't get the idea after seeing something whimsical and "unprofessional". But if this doesn't sound compelling to you, at the very least, it has to be said: let's not kid ourselves and think that this list will have a long and prosperous life as a category. Someone is invariably going to decide it's a stupid and non-essential category, possibly citing the consensus of this AfD to do so, and start emptying it out. No tears will be shed (categories aren't even visible on mobile under most circumstances), and the world will move on. I am still not clear on what encyclopedic purpose it serves to do this, but it will probably happen, since it is already happening to the list: I suppose there will simply be one iota less of fun in the sum of all human knowledge. All the leaves are brown, indeed! jp×g 04:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the keep rationales above, although less numerous, to be more compelling. Clarityfiend presented clear evidence that the topic of songs about California has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, thus meeting WP:LISTN, therefore keep. The primary deletion rationale, that the list is prone to accruing cruft, is uncompelling, as deletion is not cleanup; we can always fight cruft by removing it. I find the delete rationale that the list is WP:SHAREDNAME to be uncompelling, as this is List of songs about California, not List of songs with California in the title, and indeed plenty of entries don't mention California in their title. I also find the argument that the category is sufficient uncompelling, since WP:NOTDUPE is a well-established guideline, and a list page can provide benefits to readers (such as including band names) that our current category system cannot. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albrecht Fuess[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale that he may pass NSCHOLAR, #5, but I'm not seeing it. Very low citation count and h-index, none of his positions appear to pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see how this passed NSCHOLAR#5. The citation count is low. I don't see a GNG pass either.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NACADEMIC #5: "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." Like Germany, for instance! The article says he is the professor of Islamic studies at the University of Marburg, not a professor of Islamic studies. Which suggests he holds an established chair rather than a personal chair, which does pass WP:NACADEMIC #5. Although this does need confirmation by someone familiar with the German academic system. We mustn't assume everything works as it does in the USA; in most of the world, chairs, even prestigious ones, are rarely named. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ does not pass WP:NSCHOLAR#1 or #5, here there is no indication of a named chair at all: "Seit 2010 lehrt er als Professor für Islamwissenschaft an der Universität Marburg." on his own Universities page. In Germany this is simply how research groups are referred to as a Lehrstuhl is established and then people are recruited to it, but there is no indication that this is a special chair / Lehrstuhl. --hroest 19:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep passes WP:NAUTHOR based on multiple independent reviews found by David Eppstein. --hroest 15:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Mamlukist Citation link should be changed to this https://scholar.google.de/citations?hl=de&user=zGv7MlQAAAAJ which shows high citations. Mamlukist (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mamlukist, those are actually pretty anemic citation counts, not a single one over 60. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found and added to the article four reviews of one of his authored books, and four reviews of three edited volumes. I think that's enough for a weak case for WP:AUTHOR. I don't think citation counts are very meaningful for book-based disciplines in the humanities. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mindful of the contribution of David Eppstein, I still think (and, believe me, I'm in favour of highlighting anyone who represents the under-represented Arab world) Fuess doesn't make it over the GNG bar. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Also I don't expect citation counts to be high in his subject area. Dr. Universe (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He is a professor, which in Europe does not mean a mere university lecturer. 2 academic books and 4 edited collections may be on the margins of notability, but also points towards keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yizzy[edit]

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

This is a tough one (not least because I'm a fan). There is coverage - see, eg, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] - but virtually all of it is heavily interview-based, promotional, or in dubiously reliable sources, or all three. The closest to critical commentary I see is [11] (on the BBC). Tagged for notability since its creation in 2018, so it'd be nice to resolve this in any event. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cagayan–Apayao Road[edit]

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

Unsourced and possibly not notable road (WP:GEOROAD). The lone website at external links though ([12]) seems to be used as basis for this article, yet it seems an unreliable source. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment by nominator: the external link doesn't even talk about the road itself but about the natural tourist attractions that I assume are accessible via this road. Even if it is reliable, the external link (used as basis) doesn't talk about the road itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:36, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Wu[edit]

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not appear to the be the Shirley Wu who meets WP:NSCHOLAR. Was deprodded with the claim that she has won major awards, however that does not appear to be the case. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider Wu to be an academic, so she needs to meet the general notability guidelines for people. However, I think she does meet those guidelines. The Information is Beautiful awards are the main awards in the data visualization space, and she has won them several times (and, received outside press about them, such as [[13]]). Her co-author, Nadieh Bremer has met the notability guidelines. If you can point me toward what makes Bremer count as notable but not Wu, I'm certain I can adjust Wu's article to check the same boxes. AmeliaMN (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think AmeliaMN's points are right on the money. Sgb235 16:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment this basically boils down to whether the "Information is Beautiful" Awards are notable or not, and then consequently we would have to keep or delete probably both Nadieh Bremer and Shirley Wu as the notability of both are tied to these awards. It seems Information is Beautiful is a blog run by [[David McCandless] which would argue against notability here. However, the "Information Is Beautiful Awards" keyword reveals coverage of a few newspapers, including Wired, Guardian, The Verge. --hroest 00:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hannes Röst, hi. I would disagree. It is not whether or not the Information is Beautiful Awards are notable. But whether they are notable enough to meet the requirements of any SNGs. Which they clearly do not. For example, the SXSW festival is notable, but winning an award there does not make you automatically pass WP:NFILM. Even if the Information is Beautiful Awards are notable, that does not mean that this person is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 sorry, that is what I meant. Whether the awards are notable enough to merit an article on the winner of the award. I agree the bar is higher for that than whether the awards themselves are notable and get some coverage from RS, but I am not sure where to set the bar. This is clearly a weak case here with the award being given out by a blog as I mentioned above. --hroest 13:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the characterization that the award is "given out by a blog." The award was started by David McCandless, but it is judged by a panel of experts. For example, the first year of the awards the panel included Brian Eno, Paola Antonelli, and Maria Popova. [[14]] Another year, judges included Mona Chalabi, Kim Rees, Alberto Cairo, Fernanda Viégas and Giorgia Lupi [[15]]. Are you really arguing that winners of the SXSW festival are not notable? Looking at 2021 winners I see The Fallout (film) and Lily Topples the World already have pages. Would it be better to write pages about the winning works from the Information is Beautiful Awards? AmeliaMN (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NARTIST and WP:NMOVIE, both cases that you mentioned The Fallout (film) and Lily Topples the World have been extensively discussed in WP:RS and critically reviewed, so that is why the have pages. I dont see this for either the work of Shirley Wu nor for her as a person. --hroest 16:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AmeliaMN's statement that Information is Beautiful being merely "a blog" shouldn't refute the notability of an award tied to it. WP:NMOVIE notes there are no clear guidelines on what a "major award" is, but I would argue that Information is Beautiful is a "major award" in the realm of data visualization. Periodicals like The Guardian regularly report on the winners. Winners of these awards tend to be independents (like Wu, and actually Bremer, as well), but also notable data-focused periodicals annually submit for this award. Winners in the past include Bloomberg News, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and ProPublica. As an aside, blogs in the realm of data visualization are sort of the medium outside of data journalism (which many would argue is a subset of data viz). I think related examples of notable "blogs" in the space would be Fivethirtyeight, and Nathan Yau's FlowingData, which are both pretty highly regarded in the community. Anyhow, wanted to also add that Information is Beautiful Awards is technically also managed by the consulting company Kantar Group. --Engineerchange (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment articles are on the line of acceptability. If rejected, they should be moved into draft space and not deleted.
Secondly, I just added their Online Journalism Awards ? This award is cited within Wikipedia, see Online News Association#Online Journalism Awards (OJAs). While its not the gold standard in data visualization, it's certainly a notable award in general and digital journalism and valid third party source. It prizes the best data visualization of a full year, with NYT, Guardian, Washington Post and other giant competing with their best teams. Yug (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hannes Röst: see above. Yug (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Net magazine doesn't make their archives easily available, but I think reference number 5 on the article right now (Lindberg, Oliver (August 2019). "Learn from a Data-Viz Whizz". Net Magazine.) is a RS. Here is a link to a page that reproduces some of the article [[16]] AmeliaMN (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just added two more Fast Company articles that I hope count as RS. AmeliaMN (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment I took a shot at adding more to this article, because her work does seem innovative with long-term significance (though it may not have found its foothold in history quite yet). I couldn't find much more than has been included, but that may only reflect the traditional lack of in-depth coverage of female minorities, rather than her true notability. Only time will tell. JAnnora2 (talk) 01:00, 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) 03:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment perhaps a small step towards notability, but Wu was featured by GitHub today as a part of their ReadME project: tweet and link --Engineerchange (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article has been significantly improved since the deletion discussion was initiated, and now clearly meets notability. There are multiple independent, reliable sources cited about Wu as an individual. AmeliaMN (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep per part 3 of WP:NARTIST; her collective body of work (book, Bussed Out viz, Hamilton viz, Data Sketches project) appear well-known in the data visualization and data journalism communities, as evidenced by multiple reliable, independent sources that cover both of those domains (Digital Arts, Net Magazine, Fast Company) and a number of independent "articles" (read: podcasts/videos/interviews) that review her work (storytellingwithdata, frontendmasters, reactiveconf, Spotify's Anchor). --Engineerchange (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Specific note (before I relist), just to clarify: interviews are NOT adequate sources for notability purposes, since they are primary sources (see footnote c at WP:NOR). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: None of the arguments are particularly convincing. I will note that WP:NRVE is quite explicit that no subject is ever inherently notable, whether that be because the subject won an award or something else - notability is not inherited either. I see the article appears to have significantly be edited (improved?) during the course of this AfD. Further discussion should focus on added sources and determine whether they actually show the subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG - that is, "significant coverage in muliple reliable sources".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing presented above convinces me otherwise. I did my due diligence - this subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. The majority of sourcing is self-published or primary source material. And winning an award or writing some papers doesn't convince me they merit inclusion at this time. The subject does not meet WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ strike duplicate !vote Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC) While there are a number of borderline primary sources (I think there should be somewhat of a distinction between something completely in the person's control, like their personal website, and things that get edited and at least lightly fact-checked, like interviews), there are multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources. The strongest source is Lindberg, Oliver (August 2019). "Learn from a Data-Viz Whizz". Net Magazine. Unfortunately, the magazine is primarily a print publication and doesn't have their archives online. However, here is a link to a page that reproduces some of the article [[17]] The other strongest sources are the two FastCompany articles about her work, What Happens When Google Turns Artists Loose On Its Search Data and Move over, data visualization. The era of ‘data simulation’ is here. If this discussion results in a delete decision, please move back to the draftspace. The co-authored book she wrote with Nadieh Bremer is very new, but is gaining critical attention and I believe will lead to more sources in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmeliaMN (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This AfD discussion has generated plenty of heat, alas not so much light... I haven't seen a single persuasive argument as to why this should be kept, nor is there anything in the article which conclusively demonstrates notability, not alone and not even when all is added up. It boils down to a somewhat promotional piece (with heavy refbombing) on a person doing their job, for which they've received some non-notable recognition. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO, and more to the point fails to convince me that this article is needed in an encyclopaedia. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others above, and when in doubt keep. Issues can always be resolved on the talk page or by another nomination later by someone else. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per DoubleGrazing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JGHowes ^talk 17:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KWDC-LP[edit]

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

~~De-prodded~~ Redirect was reverted without rationale or improvement. Does not meet WP:BCAST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Closed: First off, this AfD was never a dePROD, it was unredirect. Second, if the OP would have given me a minute, my very next edit was the improvement. I sent this on the OP's talk page alerting them "Next edit, fully updated page. Would you like to retract that AfD?" and they replied with "You don't simply revert without improving the article.", showing they didn't even bother to view the edit before reverting and AfD'ing.

Third, under WP:NMEDIA (also called BCAST), which they wrongly quote, this article does meet the notability standard. It has a valid and current FCC (US) or CRTC (Canada) license. It carries it's own programming and not solely that of a network source (ie: K-LOVE, Air1, CBC, APTN, etc.). It can be verified as "on the air" (this one is sometimes difficult, especially for low-power FMs). Triple checkmark. That's notable under NMEDIA.

I'm requesting that this AfD be Speedy Kept and Closed and onel5969 admonished for completely ignoring NMEDIA or not even reading it and completely lying on this very AfD, for the reason for this AfD (ie: claiming it was a dePROD when it was a unredirect). Completely ridiculous behavior from a decade+ user who should more than know better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Further history of the station was added. This with sources from the college's own newspaper and the local Stockton newspaper (which is owned by Gannett). Apparently KWDC's history gets a little tangled with since-deleted Stockton-based LPFM-er KXVS.

I have also continued to try and discuss this AfD with the OP to no avail. They are either not listening to what I have to say or ignoring my posts. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per the reasons Neutralhomer has given, and if I may add a quote from WP:NMEDIA: "Radio or television stations referenced only to the licensing documents themselves are granted a temporary presumption of notability pending the addition of better sources." The original revert was done one day after the article was published. It takes time to find good sources (even Rome wasn't built in a day). --DrChuck68 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or restore as a redirect. "Student media, such as over-the-air college radio stations and student newspapers, are not presumed non-notable just because they primarily serve a university or college student population, but are judged by the same inclusion standards as any other media outlet." - My italics. Also, "For instance, even a 10-watt station belonging to a high school may be notable, if it's in a fight to keep the grandfathered Class D license with which it's been broadcasting for thirty years." Again my italics. I see no evidence for notability under these guidelines, WP:BCAST. However, I do note, "A student newspaper or radio station which is deemed non-notable should always be redirected to the college or university that it serves.". Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb: First off, this is not a Class D (not counting translators), as those aren't even issued anymore, as full-power broadcast stations. Second, this station's coverage area allows it to be heard across almost all of Stockton with ease. According to the 2010 Census, Stockton had a population of 291,707 people. I think they are targeting just a little bit more than "the university or college student population".

Under NMEDIA, for a radio station to be deemed notable it must pass a three question test. First, does it have an active FCC (US) or CRTC (Canada) license? This one does. Second, does it carry it's own programming and not solely that of a network source (ie: K-LOVE, Air1, CBC, APTN, etc.). Yes, this can be confirmed. Third, can it be verified as "on the air"? Again, yes. If a triple yes, then it is notable and passes NMEDIA. Simple as that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Neutralhomer.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NMEDIA is not an accepted notability guideline, and with good reason it seems. The article has either no or one independent, reliable source about the station (I don't get results for the article from The Record, but that may be a GDPR issue), and fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: This is The Record article and here is one from the college's The Collegian newspaper. This video of the station's launch is by a completely different station, KDRT-LP out of Davis, California. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Record link leads me to the homepage (like I said, probably because I try to access this from Europe), so I accept this one AGF. The Collegian is not an independent source, the student newspaper for a college reporting on the student radio for a college. And the DCTV source is, as far as the description allows, some "community TV site", basically a TV Wiki where everyone from the region can post a short video of what interests them (well, it presumably is curated so that only "acceptable" videos are posted), which hardly makes this a reliable source or a source indicating notability. So, all in all, one article from the local newspaper. Fram (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Ah, I was not familiar with the GDPR acronym. My apologizes there. Once you said "Europe" it made perfect sense. :) Side rant: That whole thing doesn't make sense to me, why can't Europeans view our websites because of some regulation? It's a news site! They can view Facebook, it's from the US, but not a newspaper? Makes no sense. /side rant

Anyway, there are a couple other articles from The Collegian and a crosspost from what used to be KXVS-LP, now an online streamer. But, I didn't feel the need to overload with too many Collegian sources and the KXVS-LP post is from that station's official Facebook. So, not the best source. :( I consider the local newspaper having even one article about any radio station, not alone an LPFM, a win in my book. :) But, in the great scheme of things where this is still considered non-notable, I'll take it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the only criteria are license + original programming + on the air, a station would be notable as soon as it gets a license and someone says "hi" on the air, and before it would've received any independent coverage at all. That doesn't seem like a great recipe to determine what should be included in an encyclopedia. That said, I don't see any reason why it should be deleted if there's an obvious parent article to merge to (San Joaquin Delta College). The content is not problematic such that the history needs to be deleted. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: No. One can not just say "Hi." and it be considered independent programming. This, from KFFP-LP in Portland, Oregon, is considered independent programming. That is worthy of inclusion. If it is just 3ABN or K-LOVE simulcasting with a Top-Of-The-Hour ID from the station itself, that is not independent programming and is not worthy of inclusion and would be a complete redirect. Only rare examples like WPLJ or WAIW (FM) would exempt a page from this, since it has a prior history. But WSRD-LP, an LPFM out of Albany, Georgia or KUDU out of Tok, Alaska, these have always been affiliates of LifeTalk Radio, so they will always be redirects. Does that better help you understand NMEDIA? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding what is "worthy of inclusion" - says who? I don't mean that flippantly, but a question. Notability guidelines typically defer to the sources to determine what's worthy of note rather than just what the subject is or has done. Most of the time something like "has received a Grammy Award" doesn't grant notability because of the fact of a Grammy but because winning a Grammy means you'll be the subject of enough in-depth reliable independent sourcing to write a good, neutral article. There are a small number of SNGs like PROF that operate according to fact rather than source coverage, but those kinds of exceptions are rare and hard defended these days. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Neutralhomer. Article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no clear consensus at this stage. WP:NMEDIA does not appear to be an accepted subject notability guideline, hence I have a hard time grasping why it is even being cited at all (either as a criteria for deletion or for keeping). Even if it were an acceptable criterion, it would still be overridden by GNG. Few comments deal with this issue specifically. More discussion on available sources and how they show (or do not show) notability is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: As has been stated repeatedly, NMEDIA has community concensus through WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, the consensus that NMEDIA is considered part of N and GNG. I should note that GNG, a subset of N, is a guideline, just like NMEDIA. So, if we are going to consider it a "not accepted guideline" just because it's a "guideline", the same would go for GNG and N because those are "guidelines" too. This is not about NMEDIA, it's about KWDC-LP.

Now, about KWDC-LP, as I have stated previously, the article has 3 references from outside reliable third-party sources, per RS. This is 2 newspaper articles (one local, one university) and one YouTube video (from an outside source, KDRT-LP) that shows the first broadcast of the station (highly notable). It has the standard numerous FCC, REC, and Arbitron sources (which are required under NMEDIA, GNG, and V) to source all the other basic information. The article has 9 sources total. This is more than enough for NMEDIA, GNG, V, and N. Article is classed as a Start, which 9 sources is more than plenty for a Start Class article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES has "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.", so no, that is not an accepted guideline either. In any case, even if NMEDIA were somehow community consensus, the overarching criteria is GNG, and I see very little about that here. If the discussion ends up being one side claiming "meets NMEDIA" and the other "fails GNG", then any reasonable closer should give precedence to the "fails GNG" arguments - this is common practice in other areas, where a marginal pass of the SNG (for example, WP:NSPORTS) is often disregarded if the subject does not actually meet GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer, I do not believe that WP:NMEDIA is a guideline. I believe it is an explanatory supplement. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: Technically you are correct. It is a "explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline", but it is still technically itself a guideline...or if you wish, a guideline of a guideline. A sub-guideline. Regardless, if we are dismissing NMEDIA as "not acceptable", then we are dismissing the entirety of N, of which GNG is a part of. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno. The template for it says This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. I thought guidelines had to go through an RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) x3 (now somewhat obsolete given the last two comments above :) ) - Guideline status ("guideline" in the sense of WP:PAG rather than the general usage) is the mark of a authority/broad consensus. BCASTOUTCOMES is an essay, and NMEDIA is an essay (the supplement style of essay), which do not require any broad consensus and don't have the standing of those that have been promoted to guideline.

The article has 9 sources, but only one of them is the kind of source that's any help for GNG (The Record). The rest are databases, connected to the subject, etc. I haven't !voted yet, but as much as I love LP radio stations I'm worried about the assertion of this kind of coverage as uncontroversial proof of notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired (it's 3a EDT). OK, Novem Linguae, Rhododendrites: You are more than welcome to file an RfC on NMEDIA, that's the spirit of PAG. That is not what this AfD is about. It's about KWDC-LP. Why EVERYONE is trying to make it about NMEDIA or BCASTOUTCOMES, I don't know. But let me make something clear.

When you do, it's going to be a shitstorm. Dravecky's legacy will be lost, which will be a very sad day. WP:WPRS will be gone, there will be no point in it. Thousands of articles will be deleted. Tens of thousands of work hours will be lost. Hundreds, maybe a thousand or two, of DYKs will be gone. 83 Class B articles. 1 Class A article. 12 GAs (and more waiting in the wind) gone. 1...yes, ONE!...FA which took 2 years and made the local paper, will be gone. All this because of, what basically amounts to, IDONTLIKEIT. Even worse, is this will carry over to WP:TVS. The TV station articles will be deleted as well and for the same reasons. They fall under NMEDIA too. Newspapers, internet channels, hell even SiriusXM could be deleted per that RfC.

But it gets worse, the editors who have worked so very hard on these articles over the years, they have nothing left to do. Their work, what they have spent time on for years, will be all for naught. We will lose probably 50 to 75 great editors, myself included.

So, yes, I'm upset. Yes, I'm taking this personally. I've put far too much time and work into this project to have it destroyed now. But I'm more upset that people can't stay on task long enough to decide about KWDC-LP without going "hey look, a bunny" and veering wildly off course to talk about NMEDIA and BCASTOUTCOMES as if it's part of the AfD too. It's not. I'm a custodian for an elementary school and I have 6 year olds who can hold their attention for longer than that....and they've seen bunnies. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either there are indeed thousands of articles which fail WP:GNG and are only kept because of NMEDIA, or (more likely) the vast majority of these articles will be kept anyway as they are about notable subjects, and only the minority which was incorrectly protected by NMEDIA may be deleted. Nearly all votes, including yours, referenced NMEDIA, it is very much part of this AfD, and it isn't a generally accepted guideline. Fram (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: With all due respect (and I do alot as an editor and an admin), it's not just me, it's everyone who agrees with me. But when the RfC comes, we'll see who is right. Me (and by extension NMEDIA/BCASTOUTCOMES/community consensus) or a couple edits who DONTLIKEIT. We'll see. Like I said, it's gonna be a shitstorm. Pack a parka and some galoshes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to raise NMEDIA to a guideline, feel free to start an RfC. No idea why it should be a shitstorm and not just a civil, normal discussion, unless you intend to turn it into a shitstorm if such a discussion doesn't go the way you like. I see no reason for me to start an RfC to confirm that it isn't a guideline though, that's not what RfCs are for. But when people point out that just having one GNG-acceptable source (and a rather local one at that) is not sufficient to meet the GNG, it seems to me that you are wrong to dismiss this simply as DONTLIKEIT votes. Fram (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Why would I start an RfC on something that has had community consensus (ie: BCASTOUTCOMES, that was built from these very AfDs) and NMEDIA just being understood as being part of N. For more than a decade people just understood N = Notable. NMEDIA = Also notable. Life went on. Only now, on an AfD for a low-power FM in Stockton, does the community question it....and 15 years later?! I say 15 cause it was a thing before I got here and I've been here 15 years. So, no, I will be making no RfC on something that has been just fine for 15 years. Don't break what ain't broken.

I have zero intentions of making any RfC a shitstorm. What I'm saying is it will become one. No one understands radio stations, TV stations, it's "useless information" and "non-notable", but look at BCASTOUTCOMES. Which, by the way, is part of WP:DEL. That's the entirety of our community consensus. That's 15+ years worth. That's notable. If we toss that out, I think that would cause a shitstorm. That would be precedence setting and will be used for other deletionists to delete articles en masse. We currently have 6,305,094 articles. Didn't we have north of 7 million?

I look at things logically. The path from a precedence setting RfC on radio and television station articles going very bad is that 6.3 million article number going down....and fast. Our good editor number will follow. Why break something that isn't broken and hasn't been for 15+ years?....and shouldn't be discussed in this very AfD. This is not the forum for this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reference to BCASTOUTCOMES on WP:DEL, so I don't get why you would call it "part of WP:DEL". We never had more than 7 million articles, we probably never had more articles than now (recently, a few thousand articles have been deleted, but that's about the biggest purge we've had in years). BCASTOUTCOMES is "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." I highly doubt your apocalyptic view of the hordes of deletionists is realistic: such things didn't happen when e.g. SCHOOLOUTCOMES was changed, no one went around nominating hundreds or thousands of school articles. And no, NMEDIA is not part of N, it never was a guideline (unlike, say, NPROF or NSPORTS). Fram (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BCASTOUTCOMES, scroll up to the top. "This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page." It's part of DEL.

NMEDIA, scroll up to the top. "This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline." It's part of N.

This is an explanatory supplement to the ___ policy page/guideline. That means, it's part of that policy or guideline. Let's move on. Let's also discuss the article at hand. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every page can declare that they are an "explanatory supplement" to anything. If it isn't in WP:DEL or linked from WP:DEL, then it isn't "part of" WP:DEL. And the "explanatory supplement" box explicitly states that these are not guidelines and have not been vetted by the community. As for the article at hand: it has only one (relatively local) independent, reliable, indepth, non-ruotine source, so fails WP:GNG, and thus should be deleted or redirected. Fram (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has two sources, both local. One from the LOCAL Stockton commercial newspaper, the other from the LOCAL University newspaper. The other (third) is a YouTube video produced of the station's launch. That video was created by another radio station entirely and about 40 miles away from Stockton in Davis, California. A video that is highly notable because it shows the actual launch of the station itself. Something that is very rare.

But, I have reached the point where I don't care. I. Don't. Care. Do whatever. I don't care. I am walking away. Which is highly rare. I'm done fighting, I'm done arguing, I'm done trying to prove a very simple point. WPRS is yours to destroy. You all are so hellbent on doing so. Go for it! I. Don't. Care. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has two local sources, yes, but only one is independent. The local university newspaper is not an independent source for the local university radio. The Youtube video was already discussed above as well, it is from a community site where everyone may post videos (with a check that they are appropriate, but that's it). These are not the work of a journalist or published in a journalistic setting, this is a wiki-like project. "A video that is highly notable because it shows the actual launch of the station itself. Something that is very rare." That's not how notability works on enwiki. But all of this was already discussed above, no idea why we have to go through this again. And no idea why you get so worked up about an AfD about one local radio station. Fram (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And therein lies the whole reason for the explanatory supplement. Under the section "Why separate criteria", it states "...the media does not often report on itself. It is not often that one media outlet will give neutral attention to another, as this could be seen as 'advertising for the competition.' Also, when searching for sources on media outlets, the results are often pages produced by the outlet, making it difficult to find significant coverage in multiple sources."--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 is using this very AfD to go on an AfD spree. What I said would happen, is already happening. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I see 6 Philippine radio station AFDs they started, but none of them use this AfD in any way (they don't reference it, they have no relation to it). Please don't make incorrect or hyperbolic accusations. Fram (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The station meets BCAST, and whether or not it is a vetted notability guideline, does a good job explaining why these types of articles have typically been kept per long precedent. I don't see how the encyclopedia is improved by its deletion, and per BCAST I do see it improved by its inclusion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 17:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer (musician)[edit]

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

Kiefer Musician who does not satisfy general notability and for whom the claim for musical notability is inadequate. Already draftified once, then moved back to article space by originator. The statement is made in the lede that the subject is a Grammy winner, but there is citation for that claim, and the statement at the end of the article about the Grammy is unreferenced, and has to do with a minor role. The article Ventura (Anderson .Paak album) about the Grammy-winning album does identify Kiefer as one of the producers of two tracks and one of the writers of one track. Musical notability criterion 8 refers to winning a major award such as a Grammy, and this is only a minor mention for an album, for a criterion that applies to performers. Only two references:

Reference	Comments	Independent and Reliable	Significant
1	Allmusic	No
2	Pitchfork (online magazine)	Yes	No, one paragraph

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Allmusic is long established as a reliable source for artist biographies, as can be seen from its inclusion at WP:RSMUSIC. Their review of his debut album is also good coverage. The Pitchfork source is a reasonably significant review, though admittedly short. The Happysad album actually has an entry at Metacritic [18] that gives four sources of reviews: Allmusic, musicOMH [19], and print reviews in Q and Mojo. I think this meets criteria #1 of WP:MUSICBIO. In addition, the artist has released two albums on Stones Throw Records, which meets MUSICBIO criteria point #5. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 16:12, 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) 01:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Kiefer passes criterion 5 of WP:MUSICBIO as Stones Throw Records is "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable." Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:33, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winding Stair, Kentucky[edit]

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

Much like Brows Defeat, Kentucky (AfD discussion) this is a Lawrence County location that GNIS is sourced to Rennick, but it appears in neither of Rennick's published books. Rennick's Lawrence County Card Collection has a mention to a Winding Stair that is a cave along Catt Creek near the "old 'Sprinkle' farm". Rennick doesn't say too much about said cave, and searching for Winding Stair is mainly brining up a trail in southern Kentucky near the Rockcastle River and the mountains in Oklahoma. This doesn't seem to be notable and it certainly is not an unincorporated community, where GNIS got the idea that this is a "populated place" I don't know. Hog Farm _Talk 00:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 00:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 00:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Locates to a random spot on a hillside, which coordinates are not to be relied on anyway. Even in that general area there's obviously no town. Mangoe (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a house at the head of Catt's Creek, per Rennick 2000, p. 12 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRennick2000 (help). It is not in Rennick 2016 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRennick2016 (help). However, the card collection cited in the nomination is sourced to an account of "Stories that tell about streams" by Edma Lane Carter in a Lawrence County Folklore journal and Rennick 2000, p. 12 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRennick2000 (help) says outright "Neither of the two traditional accounts of the derivation of this stream's name have been confirmed.". The stream name story is the source of the Winding Stair name. So this is a suspect name of a house where possibly someone once stayed. According to folklore.
We haven't come across an "unincorporated community" that's sourced to outright unconfirmed folklore in the Ramsay Card Collection for Missouri, so Missouri seems to be one up on Kentucky here. I know: famous last words. Uncle G (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Rennick, Robert M. (2016). "Place Names Beginning with the Letter W". Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection (26). Morehead State University.
- Rennick, Robert M. (2000). "Lawrence County — Post Offices & Place Names". County Histories of Kentucky (244). Morehead State University.
Delete as there do not appear to be any sources showing that there is a "populated place" or any kind of community with this name in the given area. firefly ( t · c ) 11:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Norbauer, Ryan; Studlar, Donley T. (2011). "Monarchy and the British Political Elite: Closet Republicans in the House of Commons". Comparative Politics. 43 (2): 225–242. ISSN 0010-4159.

[2] Kirk, Neville (2005). "The Conditions of Royal Rule: Australian and British Socialist and Labour Attitudes to the Monarchy, 1901-11". Social History. 30 (1): 64–88. ISSN 0307-1022.

[3] Taylor, Antony (1999). Down with the Crown': British Anti-monarchism and Debates about Royalty since 1790. Reaktion Books. ISBN 978-1-78023-156-3. NB Chapter 7: The Labour Party and the Failure of English Republicanism 1917-1999

[4] O. Morgan, Kenneth (15 October 2003). "The Labour Party and British Republicanism". E-rea (1.2). doi:10.4000/erea.347.

[5] "Just how republican is Jeremy Corbyn?". www.spectator.co.uk. 29 August 2015.

[6] Foote, G. (1997). The Labour Party's Political Thought: A History. Springer. ISBN 978-0-230-37747-9.

[7] Hood, Andrew; Benn, Tony (2013). Common Sense. Random House. ISBN 978-1-4481-6512-4.

[8] "Republicans Rally As Queen Celebrates Birthday". Sky News. 9 June 2016.

[9] "Republicans provoke Labour". www.standard.co.uk. 10 April 2012.

[10] "The secret life of Labour's republicans". BBC News. 24 September 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]