Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 08	May 10 >

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 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. Hog Farm _Talk 04:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sistranser Bach[edit]

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

Article claims this is a small river, but I can't verify its existence. Article also claims it has "excellent water quality". Rusf10 (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete The German WP article is nearly identical, except it leaves off the water supply part and has a picture of a tiny creek in what looks to be a culvert. I can't see how this is notable. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 06:40, 10 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 to delete. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SNP Trade Union Group[edit]

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

Article fails WP:RS, in fact there are no sources for this article when nominated. It also fails WP:GNG Angryskies (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Structural component of the SNP;^[1] possibly second largest membership organisation in Scotland.^[2] Easily passes the GNG.^[3]^[4]^[5] AfD is not clean up.

References

^ Mitchell, James; Bennie, Lynn; Johns, Rob. The Scottish National Party: Transition to Power. OUP Oxford. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-19-958000-2.
^ "Chris Stephens: Trade union value in SNP future". www.scotsman.com. 14 November 2014.
^ "SNP trade union group backs Tie LGBTI+ Scottish education campaign". Source. 12 October 2015.
^ "SNP trade unionists in push for party to adopt total fracking ban". HeraldScotland. 29 July 2015.
^ Belser, Eva Maria; Fang-Bär, Alexandra; Massüger, Nina; Pillai, Rekha Oleschak. States Falling Apart?: Secessionist and Autonomy Movements in Europe. Stämpfli Verlag. p. 153. ISBN 978-3-7272-5913-5.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would appear to be notable enough, as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not cite any references to demonstrate it's notability. The article can be draftified if necessary for improvements. --RaviC (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @RaviC: It doesn't matter whether the sources demonstrating notability are cited in the article itself. See WP:ARTN. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article in the The Scotsman is an opinion piece, it's not clear to me that the 5-person Source News is a reliable source, and I only see passing mentions in the books The Scottish National Party: Transition to Power and States Falling Apart?: Secessionist and Autonomy Movements in Europe; I wouldn't count those towards WP:GNG/WP:ORGCRIT. The article from The Herald is significant coverage and a reliable source that should count towards GNG/ORGCRIT. Are there others though? I could only find passing mentions elsewhere. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ MarkH21: I stand corrected regarding the use of sources in the article. I'd also note your analysis seems to prove a lack of RS coverage for this group. --RaviC (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More sourcing.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Landin, Conrad (31 July 2019). "SNP union group 'does nothing to support workers'". Morning Star.
^ "SNP trade unionists in call for rent controls after 'tidal wave' of evictions". The National. 29 June 2020.
^ Savage, Michael (6 May 2015). "Workers abandon traditional allegiance and switch to SNP". The Times.
^ "In Scotland, trade unionists are already leaving Labour behind". Financial Times. 18 May 2015.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 06:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources (some of which I found on my own search prior to checking prior AfD comments, lol!) I'll incorporate them into the article if it's closed to keep. jp×g 04:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khans of Sahiwal[edit]

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

Non-notable family, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Seems like a good topic and interested users may develop this into a better one in the drafspace. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify It seems there is coverage, with a 4minute search found two references, so there is more out there. scope_creep^Talk 18:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 06:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. These seem to me like credible sources, and I don't know how much more coverage you can ask for about something that happened in the 1500s. jp×g 03:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lanser Bach[edit]

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

This is an unsourced article. It is not clear to me what this actually is. Is it a river? (according to the article it is, but I don't believe it) Is it a brook? Or just a drainage ditch? (as it appears in the photo) Whatever it is, it does not appear to be notable since I cannot find any sources. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete There is a German WP article but it says even less than the English article; there are also a couple of other commons pictures, which show a very small creek running through a field: one could easily stand straddling it. Bach would generally translate to "brook" or "creek", so at this point this seems to be a rather minor stream. Mangoe (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 06:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero news results and two book results which seem like passing mentions ("Weil der Lanser Bach wegen seiner Wasserbringung für die beiden Badeanstalten als Vorfluter praktisch ausschied , blieb nur die Entscheidung zwischen der zweiten und dritten Möglichkeit über . Und nun galt es für die Gemeinde ..." → "Because the Lanser Bach was practically ruled out as a receiving water for the two bathing establishments because of its water supply, only the decision between the second and third option remained. And now it was true for the congregation ..."). Nothing to phone home about. jp×g 03:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taru Mateti[edit]

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NSPORT. The subject is clearly an amateur runner. Only passing mentions in RS, no substantial coverage anywhere. Roller26 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not competing at the elite level of the sport and does not have significant independent coverage for general notability. SFB 22:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 23:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BASIC; all references are to running results. No secondary sources. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table of years in film[edit]

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

Either a duplicate of List of years in film, or of Template:Year nav topic5, or Template:Years in film. We don't need a table article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_years_in_film as a redundant fork. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; another copy of this arrangement of the information doesn't seem particularly helpful or necessary. jp×g 03:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicates functionality of List of years in film and Template:Years in film, where the former transcludes the latter. There is nothing to merge, and since this is an unlikely search term there is no need for a redirect. TompaDompa (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pom-o-sa Heights, Missouri[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable location. Newspapers.com brings up one auction announcement and 12 real estate listings. Searching brings up some HOA stuff for Pom-o-sa Heights but basically nothing else. Doesn't seem to be anything we can really significantly say about this place. Hog Farm _Talk 19:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source in the article is literally a dot on a DOT map. The map legend classifies these dots as "other cities and towns". I tried looking for sources for this, also using "pommosa" given that that is the name of the road. I couldn't find anything actually documenting this subject in depth, although as per Hog Farm there are suggestions that this is simply a housing estate. This is legally recognized (given that people are buying and selling, and the land ownership is recorded), populated, and not notable. Uncle G (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 23:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete HOA subdivisions are not notable, no indication this is an exception. Reywas92^Talk 07:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kekirawa Central College[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NSCHOOL / WP:GNG, lacks any reliable independent secondary sources. YouTube is not an acceptable source. The article appears to be entirely based on original research. Dan arndt (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is effectively unsourced and WP:BEFORE disclosed only non-RS; Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, other wikis, etc. There is evidence this school exists but no evidence in the article or searches that this is a notable school. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG; lacks any reliable independent secondary sources; as per nom. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — unsourced vanity/peacockery piece on a non-notable school. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article comes off like a vanity blog post/personal essay and I couldn't find anything about it in reliable sources anywhere. Not even the usual trivial name drops in articles about other subjects that a lot of schools have. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggins Hill (Missouri)[edit]

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

Short mountain that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng, also per this and this precedent. Geschichte (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is not a correct way to build an encyclopaedia. Notability is not a blanket. One has to look at each subject on its merits. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that notability is not a blanket, so it's unfortunate how many articles such as this there are from this creator. No newspapers.com hits, no indication this is a notable area of higher-than-average-elevation land. Reywas92^Talk 07:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tribby Mountain[edit]

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

Short mountain that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng, also per this and this precedent. Geschichte (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is not a correct way to build an encyclopaedia. Notability is not a blanket. One has to look at each subject on its merits. Uncle G (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t see a proper WP:BEFORE, so I don’t see a good reasoning. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominators are NOT required to explicity spell out "I did a google search and a bing search and a yahoo search and a library of congress search and found only X, Y, and Z, which are not adequate." Stating that the subject does not meet our requirements is a good reasoning. If you have nothing useful to contribute here, such as your own sources that would pass GNG and GEOLAND as the nominator pointed out, then go away rather than make useless bad-faith accusations. Reywas92^Talk 23:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero mentions in newspapers.com, zero search results of substance, just mirrors and map labels. No indication there is any significant coverage of the small hill of this mass-produced page. Reywas92^Talk 23:28, 14 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) Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 12:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Colorado Springs shooting[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is not a newswire, newspaper, or live blog. And Wikipedia editors are not journalists. KidAd • SPEAK 22:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Oh, please. Mass shootings of this magnitude always receive lasting coverage and are always notable, one does not a crystal ball for that. Nsk92 (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass shootings of this magnitude always receive lasting coverage and are always notable^{[citation needed]}^{[dubious – discuss]}. KidAd • SPEAK 23:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To play devil's advocate, we don't have a lot of articles on private residence shootings with these kinds of death tolls unless we can prove there's more notability than just based on the death toll itself. Love of Corey (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:RAPID. Nominated for Afd with no Prod in about 80 minutes. WP:NOTNEWS can't even be assessed in that short time. Remember that WP:RAPID says "It is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate...to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge." 80 minutes is clearly not enough time for clear picture of notability to be established. Also no prod means that this should be closed ASAP due to WP:RAPID. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above, given that the article was nominated so soon after it was created gives concerns if WP:BEFORE was observed and if WP:NOTNEWS even applies. This is still a developing event, so I would venture to say to wait a week or two before discussing this article's eligibility. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-speedy keep per above comments; although likely not ITN worthy, and none of the speedy keep criteria apply, KidAd is directed towards WP:RAPID. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - I'm not convinced this article will become notable in the long term, but we still don't know anything about the shooter or the victims right now. Let's wait a week for any new information to come out, and if there's nothing that can make this shooting distinct, we could revisit this deletion discussion. Love of Corey (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, at least for now also per WP:RAPID. Wizzito (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I thought this AfD was already closed? Love of Corey (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It was closed by someone who had first voted in it, which isn't allowed. Fram (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Love of Corey (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is notable as 5+ people have died and it occurred in a place where mass shootings of this death size don’t usually happen in the US, so it will have a lot of coverage, thus making it notable. • • rslashthinkong (User page) (User talk page) 12:36, 10 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) CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Ehricks[edit]

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

While he did play in two World Cup qualifiers and appeared in one Caribbean Cup qualifier according to the stats sites, Ehricks comprehensively fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since when are we deleting article on international footballers? His surname also seems to be spelt Ehrichs in some sources, and on a quick look, there are at least a couple of sources about him under that spelling: [1], [2]. I believe it's likely there is more coverage of him, but Puerto Rican newspapers don't seem to have a prominent online coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The misspelling at least explains why there was so little coverage of him. I still don't see significant coverage - almost all of it is from Hofstra and not secondary, so I won't be withdrawing: for instance he's headlined here but there's only one mention of him in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 11:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joseph - international player. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He still clearly fails WP:GNG. As far as I can tell (having searched the archives of major Puerto Rican newspapers), it's impossible to improve with secondary reliable sources. SportingFlyer T·C 13:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two of the international caps, were starts where he played the full matches against at the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Second Round against Honduras. Someone blanked a couple of references to this back in early 2011, that I've restored, though they are now dead URLs. I couldn't confirm the third cap, however 2010 version of the PR team article says 3 caps. Nfitz (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple of Puerto Rican references. Nfitz (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ehricks isn't mentioned in the lede of either of those articles - would you mind copying the text where he's mentioned so we can determine whether they pass WP:GNG? They don't seem promising to me, neither of those stories are specifically on him. SportingFlyer T·C 10:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's only a sentence or two. Proquest access is available through the Wikipedia Library Card to any regular editor here. See https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ and use these links one, two to see the whole article, and not just the lead. I wasn't trying to imply they were great GNG references. The two broken links would be better - well at least the one that's independent. Nfitz (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a single keep !voter has presented evidence that any WP:GNG-qualifying sources exist for this player. Every single source currently in the article is problematic somehow. SportingFlyer T·C 11:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also don't see any GNG-meeting references here, and since NSPORT explicitly defers to GNG it's irrelevant whether he meets NFOOTY. JoelleJay (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An international player passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improvement, not deletion. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimited Group[edit]

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

no evidence of notability . It is on the LSE, but not the main section: being on its "Fledgling Index" corresponds to what we call not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being listed is no measure of notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Sparse content, sparse references. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Anane[edit]

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

Never played in a WP:NFOOTY-qualifying league (only Regionalliga, and the Slovakian league wasn't fully pro at the time), and in spite of the large number of references fails WP:GNG as none of them are SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has also played in fully pro V.League 1 for Hòa Phát Hà Nội F.C.. SIGCOV sources are 1, 2, 3, and 4. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FPL, V.League was not fully pro the year he played in the league. SportingFlyer T·C 13:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG and possibly NFOOTBALL, see sources above (although Transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source). Giant Snowman 11:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with sources provided (Transfermarkt isn't reliable but Deutsche Welle certainly is!) Nfitz (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG and NFOOTBALL, generally. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beulah, Gilead[edit]

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

The very first edit copies almost word-for-word from this page from a government body. Although this has been linked, it is still a violation of WP:CV. Although subsequent edits have been made, almost all of the content is copied from the aforementioned webpage. However, I do not believe it to be a G12 violation. EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - so sorry, I realised that the article did attribute (although I did double-check the article before nomination, I missed that bit out twice). Can I request a speedy keep? EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Uncle G (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and Speedy keep - this is not a copyvio and this not an AfD issue. The Office of Environment and Heritage is part of the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, and their web content has Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licenses (which the Wikipedia page makes very clear at the bottom) - meaning this isn't an issue. There are a lot of pages with OEH excerpts from the heritage register as there was a concerted effort by a number of editors a few years back to add NSW heritage items to Wikipedia. This page should not have been brought to AfD and I ask the nominator, @EvanTaylor1289: to close it. Deus et lex (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. SPEEDY KEEP. This page meets all the requirements for attribution is NOT WP:CV. This article is one of many articles that have been sourced, in part or whole, from the NSW Government OEH Database of Heritage Items and are sites located in New South Wales that are considered of significant heritage importance to that state. Request nomination be removed ASAP. Rangasyd (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Olympic Return Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable U23 friendly tournament, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, and it's an u-23s tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and not just U23, but U23 friendlies as well.Muur (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:48, 13 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 21:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electimize[edit]

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

Almost entirely Original Research. Mainly based on the research and work of Ahmed Khalafallah and Abdel-Raheem Mohamed. WP:BEFORE only confirmed that the term and research around the term is done primarily by the duo. The google scholar profile will help to decide. Chirota (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear attempt to use WP to bolster the subject's notability, rather than reflect it as would be appropriate. I'll eat my hat if this wasn't created by someone close to one or both of the authors of the cited sources. Fails notability, and largely OR per nom. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional content, the paper is cited 12 times. --hroest 00:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, promotional content. Paper is cited repeatedly, no real notability here. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost the entire article seems to be written off of 3 papers published by the same people. There seems to be some duplicate references, if those are ignored the actual number of references should be 4. The only mentions of "Electimize" seem to be from papers written by Khalafallah Ahmed and Abdel-Raheem Mohamed, so I'm not too inclined to trust those. And these are barely cited, per other !votes. Plus, some of the article (especially the "Algorithm steps" section) is WP:OR. HoneycrispApples (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing early. Doubtful the sourcing, etc needed for this subject will turn up and make it a keep. Missvain (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Hasan[edit]

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

Being a casting director doesn't make him notable. No significant coverage, Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Sonofstar (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:NCREATIVE or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI couldn't find significant coverage about the subject. Fails notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References examined. Does not pass WP:NCREATIVE --Whiteguru (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 17:37, 13 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 21:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toffler (Club)[edit]

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

No significant source. Fails WP:ORG Sonofstar (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any refs, and the Dutch Wikipedia doesn't have an article. When the do we can translate it and use their refs. Herostratus (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found [3] [4]. Also some listings with some information for the club and its indoors summer festival. It's a beginning but not enough for keep. Delete for now per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTINHERETED. I'm open to change my mind if there are more articles than this closure incident, including longer listings. gidonb (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My only conclusion here is that the reviewer didn't even bother to check the refs, and since nearly all edits from creation until mine were automated or semi-automated no one else noticed either. I did a quick search for replacements and found nothing useful at the time. Thought about PRODing it, but often those get removed by the it exists so it must be notable crowd. The refs provided above aren't WP:SIGCOV, and I couldn't find any by going through the usual gamut of searches afds conveniently link, nor do I have reason to believe that there are offline sources we could use for referencing here, so ya delete. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 03:14, 10 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 21:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gopi Bhagat[edit]

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

As per rules the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. DasSoumik (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find plenty of passing mentions but nothing addressing him directly and in depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is weak and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Weak references as per above. Does not meet WP:NCREATIVE --Whiteguru (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per rule Pinakpani (talk) 15:11, 14 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 21:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vector (Polish company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Unable to find sources Sonofstar (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG and ORG. Kolma8 (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one-liner. The article doesnt even say what the company does. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP. One liner. Sheez. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:17, 13 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) 01:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production Kawaii[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Zero Coverage. Sonofstar (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Fails GNG and ORG. Seems as a promotional piece of WP art. Kolma8 (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searching only turned up the agency's own website and channels, and the press release ([5]) used in the article, which was reprinted through some Japanese outlets. I couldn't find any secondary sources. Try searching "プロダクション「kawaii」" to look at the JP results. — Goszei (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would probably have speedied it under advertising. I mean seriously, a management team which manages a whopping 5 vtubers? Could you identify a company with any less significance than that. All right, perhaps there are pathetic companies which manage 4 vtubers... but then again, maybe not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I understand that there were a number of sources and information missing from the article, and given that the agency is still very new, I am in favour of deleting this article until more reliable information is available to create a new article.--Jcwasheregt (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite time yet. But do keep a draft around, and seek both Japanese sources and a human translator. This was my experience with Hololive Production. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 20:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G7. Jcwasheregt is the page creator and !vote delete in the AFD. Link20XX (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) nearlyevil 665 05:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

¥€$[edit]

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

No indication of pass of WP:GNG or other criteria such as chart rankings. Sources are primary. nearlyevil 665 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has two reviews from reliable sources cited in the article and also some coverage from Paper so I think that it just about meets WP:NALBUM. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two secondary sources in the article alongside these other two makes four sources, so it is a definite GNG/NALBUM pass. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In agreement with the previous voters. The nomination was made just 15 minutes after the article was created, and while the main editor was still sprucing it up. The creator should have finalized it in their sandbox first, but the nominator seems to have only looked at the then-current state of the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institutions of learning in Pakistan during antiquity[edit]

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

This is a WP:CONTENTFORK of Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent, which already exists. LearnIndology (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge into Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent per nom (WP:CONTENTFORK). LearnIndology (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent. Pakistan is a part of the Indian subcontinent and the institutions of learning mentioned here are ancient Hindu and Buddhist universities at a time when the areas in Pakistan were culturally, religiously and politically a part of India (Pakistan was created just in 1947 through the partition of India). Much of the content here is a WP:CFORK of Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent repeated word for word. The creator of this article seems to have initiated a move war when the article was expanded to include the rest of the Indian subcontinent. Wikipedia has no place for nationalism. Knox490 (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Knox490! Pakistan is undoubtedly a part of Indian subcontinent. But the purpose of creating this article was to highlight some aspects of history of learning in Pakistan, not of wider south Asian region I.e this article was meant for institutes of learning in Pakistan only. I tried my best to provide maximum reliable sources for the topic. And actually claims that Pakistan is a part of India are form of "nationalism" which should not have place on Wikipedia. Moreover, the content in this article has not similar topic as "Ancient institutions of learning in Indian subcontinent", it is meant to highlight aspects of a particular region only, not of whole South Asia. I didn't intend to start any edit warring here, but I want to keep the topic according to the purpose. In short, I don't think it fulfills Criteria for deletion. If you have any suggestions for improvement, I will do my best to implement them. Kindly try to see other ways instead of deleting/merging this article; I think that it can be improved instead of removing. Aglrochisat (talk)
Hi LearnIndology! I already suggested you to create a new article on the topic of wider south Asian history; and I don't think it is form of WP:CONTENTFORK because Pakistan and India cannot be thought as necessarily having shared history and institutes; the purpose of creating this article was to highlight some aspects of history of learning in Pakistan, not of wider south Asian region I.e this article was meant for institutes of learning in Pakistan only. Your thoughts will be appreciated for the improvement of the article. Aglrochisat (talk)
Support per nomination. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent per Knox490, who's opinion I totally agree with. Also, I don't think it's historically correct to say these places had anything to do with Pakistan when they were around in pre-Pakistanian times. Anymore then it would be accurate for the United States to be cited as the originator or location of anything to do with pre-Colonialist Native American cultures, higher intuitions or otherwise. Doing so would both come off as nationalistic and original research. That said, I'd cavate that the problem could potentially be solved through renaming the article and editing it to not have a nationalistic, original research bent to it, and I'm willing to give the creator the benefit of the doubt that they did not intend to write it that way, but I don't think it's necessary compared to just merging or redirecting it into the other article. Since keeping the article, especially as currently is (but even if it was heavily modified) clearly isn't the best option here. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent. Originally it was Bharath, not Pakistan. Panini, Jivaka, Charaka are ~~Pakis~~ Pakistanis? my, my. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not use slurs. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Whiteguru: Please strike the "Paki" word or remove it. See this. LearnIndology (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi fellow wikipedians ! Looks like the approach to delete this article is backed by idea of nationalism and to refuse existence of Pakistan and its history. Like user Whiteguru has used slurs just to show his hatred, and user Adamant1 thinks that Pakistan cannot claim its history. By creating this article, I didn't expect so much edit warring and such, because it was meant to highlight educational aspects of history of Pakistan. Whatever, if this article gets deleted then I request to change the title of Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent to Ancient institutions of learning in the South Asia, as it would be more comprehensive and neutral. Aglrochisat (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whiteguru probably isn't aware of the meaning of that term (even I wasn't some time back). Paki is not used as a slur in India, but simply a short form for Pakistanis without any derogatory meaning attached to it. It is used as a slur in western countries. So I have asked him to strike or remove that word.

Talking about "South Asia", it is too wide to be used here as South Asia includes Afghanistan and Afghanistan is not in the scope of this article. Even if any institution was located outside subcontinent, "India" still would have been preferred for post IVC developments. LearnIndology (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit of eisegesis going on here, reading into a text what is not there. I am not aware of that term as a slur, and did not present this in any derogatory fashion. I have lived in India, and the term is indeed short form of Pakistani. I have many, many Muslim friends in South India. My credo is sathyam vada, priyam vada, speak the truth, speak sweetly. That was my intention. So don't go jumping up and down with your interpretation, it is way off course. Sathyam vada, priyam vada --Whiteguru (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective I could care less about the history of Pakistan. I do care about not subscribing ythings as having origins in or coming from Pakistan that predated it though. But like I made clear in my "vote" that goes for anywhere and has nothing to do with Pakistan. I'd make the same arguement for any similar article about any other country. I know its a lot easier to malign people over some imagined hatred of Pakistan or claim I think they can't claim simply because I don't think everything in the world (or in history) orginates from them then it is to admit you made a bunk, bias, and historically inaccurate article though. Adamant1 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really misleading argument. By going with it, one can claim that colosseum existed in ancient Rome, and Italy cannot claim it or acropolis existed in ancient Athens, and Greece can't claim it. You would have to admit that taxila and sharada are in Pakistan, and part of its history. Countries are created, divide and merge throughout history, and what matters for a particular thing is where it is now. There is nothing bias or historically wrong in it, although it hurts some nationalistic sentiments. Aglrochisat (talk) 00:34 ,13 May 2021 (UTC)
Not really. The Colosseum article only uses the word Italy three times and it's not to claim ownership of the colosseum by the Italians. Nor does the Acropolis of Athens make any claim of ownership of the Acropolis belonging to Greece. Aside from saying it is located there in the infobox. More importantly, Acropolis of Athens isn't called Italian Acropolis of Athens. Nor is that how anyone refers to the Acropolis of Athens. More related , [[6]] says "Some of the earliest ancient human civilisations in South Asia originated from areas encompassing present-day Pakistan." Again, there's no claim of Pakistan owning anything there. Let alone that those ancient civilizations or things related to them are in anyway Pakistani. Except for being located in what is now present-day Pakistan.

So, there's two ways you could look at this, either your framing of claims to ancient history by modern nation states is wrong or the editors of Wikipedia just have deep seeded anti-Greek/Italian/Pakistani/pick any random modern nation state sentiment when it comes to their histories. Personally, I'm going with the first one. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as above suggested. It would be feasible to convert this to a list article (similar to a disambiguation page), rather than a plain redirect, so that links are made to the articles or sections on individual institutions. Using Pakistan for anything before 1947 is anachronistic. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions don't make any policy-based arguments. Sandstein 12:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler 155[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. Can't find any published papers with in-depth coverage of this or a small number of other objects. Even the discovery paper is one of many. No popular coverage outside of the large exoplanet databases. Not notable for itself, and I'm thinking the exoplanet not notable either. Lithopsian (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article deprodded by creator without improvement, who did not understand why comprhensive databases such as the Open Exoplanet Catalogue do not count toward notability per WP:ROUTINE. I'll bring Kepler-155c to AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply having an exoplanet is not enough for notability. The exoplanet itself is not notable either. Tercer (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind, keep.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In few similar cases, i observe how effort by new, less experienced editors to create pages related to planets in habitable zone, are thwarted by established Wikipedia community. I.m.h.o., this is a bad practice (deletionism) which will negatively affect Wikipedia quality and coverage in far future.Trurle (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, LaundryPizza03, and Tercer. I suppose it's not an actively harmful page to have around, but Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate pile of factoids. Our astronomy coverage is hardly served by disconnected trivia. XOR'easter (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should make it connected and not-trivial. I agree the article is sub-standard, but deletion should be last means after attempts to improve fails. By the way, the article has been significantly improved now.Trurle (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, originally I accepted this from AfC because I thought it had WP:NASTRO passing coverage rather than just database listings, but on further inspection it seems I was mistaken. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:29, 12 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 21:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Plagianos[edit]

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

I nominated this article for deletion back in 2018 and it was kept since there was only one (other) delete !vote and one keep !vote using sources that I have come to recognize as shoddy and suboptimal for Wikipedia. Looking through a DuckDuckGo reveals only one suitable source for Wikipedia, which is an interview/press release. It was discussed in the 2018 nom that one of his films is notable, but that doesn't make Plagianos himself notable. If he is only barely notable, his status as a living person means we should err on deleting the article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For me, it's not much sources and all, as, the person just hasn't done enough to be notable for our standards. Yes, he has written, directed, and produced. But according to IMDb he's directed shorts and individual TV episodes, for obscure (I think) shows. Ditto really his producing credits, and ditto writing. I think he may have done this for one or two films but they look really obscure.

The assumption is that this doesn't indicate a notable enough career, in my mind, unless he's got considerable coverage for doing other things. He doesn't, unless its well-hidden. The one good source, an article/interview in Variety, is almost enough by itself to meet WP:GNG, as Variety is very notable and it's a meaty article, and you could probably fill it out with small bits here and there no make a reasonable GNG claim. But a lot of people could meet GNG that don't have articles and shouldn't.

And I mean the Variety article opens with "Filmmaker Elias Plagianos and his team had won the second-annual Science and Tech Script Competition at the North Fork TV Festival". The North Fork TV Festival is not notable enough to have an article here. I suppose it's in North Fork, California, an unincorporated community in the yokel part of California ("North Fork's economy was based in the timber industry until the local lumber mill closed in 1996"). If that's his top achievement... I'm not seeing an article yet. Maybe someday. Herostratus (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The programmable search engine throws up the two results given above, and naught else. BLP aside, this does not meet WP:BASIC --Whiteguru (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per nom. Fails GNG for BLP. Essentially WP:2S. Kolma8 (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that this is the second nomination, deletion is (technically) controversial and thus speedy deletion doesn't apply. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 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 21:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Axcess News[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. kind of spam also, Last news on the site was published on 1st April 2021. Can't find any source. Sonofstar (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG and ORG. Kolma8 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought about AFDing this myself, but didn't feel like a WP:BEFORE at the time. Didn't see any RS with WP:CORPDEPTH then and didn't find anything on new searches today either. Lot's of stuff like this that just escapes the notice of anyone who has the time and experience to fix or afd, some of it going back to the Use Mod era. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:19, 13 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 18:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anis Bari[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, There is no indepth, significant coverage. Sonofstar (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article reads promotional to me. I couldn't find any proper coverage to pass notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article reads promotional to me, too. Absolutely. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and yes some of the article does have a promotional tone. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability, low number of citations. Peter303x (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Adams CA-2. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Aeronautics Company[edit]

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

Nonnotable company, fails WP:ORG Sonofstar (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Adams CA-2 and redirect (If there is anything to merge). Company notable only for the aircraft, no point in having two articles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I guess merging might not be appropriate due to no indpendent & reliable source and Adams CA-2 is manufactured by multiple manufacturers, promoting them there is inappropriate.Sonofstar (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response - the CA-2 article and the Adams website strongly imply that only plans of this aircraft have ever been commercially offered, and never kits. Thus, the "manufacturer" of the aircraft is the individual builder, so it's appropriate to characterize Adams as the successor organization to Corning and Hummel—but the company still fails notability per WP:ORG, as CA-2 plans seem to be its only viable product. (The company also offers plans for another aircraft called the T-100D Mariah, but evidence seems scant that any T-100D has ever flown, so I would argue that it's not notable either. The single photo found online of a "flying" T-100D is obviously heavily retouched and I suspect it's bogus.) Carguychris (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Adams CA-2 per Steelpillow. Carguychris (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adams CA-2 - except it is already mentioned there in sufficient detail, so essentially this article can just be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adams CA-2 as per Steelpillow. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Passes WP:GNG after improvements to the article highlighted in the discussion (non-admin closure) Run n Fly (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mírzá Mustafá[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - 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.
There is only one source and it is related to the subject. Serv181920 (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just updated the page with several references and some text cleanup. Still needs some content expansion off the references, and a name change after AFD closes. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I updated the page with two more academic sources, one from Chehabi and one from Iranica. Chehabi says ([7]): "Mustafa Baghdadi, a prominent Bahai of Beirut who had moved there from Baghdad". Iranica says ([8]): "Moḥammad-Moṣṭafā Baḡdādi (b. Baghdad, 1254/1838; d. Iskenderun, 27 Šawwāl 1328/1 November 1910; Figure 1) was an eminent early Arab Bahai and apostle of Bahā-Allāh. From childhood Moḥammad-Moṣṭafā accompanied his father in his activities and waited upon Qorrat-al-ʿAyn, transmitting her messages. In Qazvin he served as a courier between her and his father, delivering his father’s questions to her and transmitting to him her answers (Baḡdādi, Resāla, p. 119). During Bahāʾ-Allāh’s exile in Baghdad and before his declaration in 1280/1863, Moḥammad-Moṣṭafā was among the few who recognized him as man yoẓheroho’llāh (He whom God shall make manifest) foretold by the Bāb and became his devoted followers. ʿAbd-al-Bahāʾ designated him as “the leader among the friends in Iraq” (1971, pp. 131-32). Renowned for his strength and courage, many Bahais took shelter with him whenever they were harassed or in trouble." Tarikhejtemai (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Smkolins (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC) see:[reply]

Ramsey Zeine (2006). Iraj Ayman (ed.). "The Bahá'í Faith in the Arabic Speaking Middle East; Part 1 (1753-1863)". Lights of 'Irfán; Haj Mehdi Armand Colloquium. 7. Wilmette, IL: National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States: 267–8. Mírzá Muammad Mustafa Baghdadi was the son of Shaykh Mu ̇ammad Shibl. Mr. Balyuzi provides us with a synopsis of his life:… Mírzá Mustafa, who was born in Baghdad in about 1837.…In 1874 Mírzá Mustafa was arrested along with many others of the Bahá'ís of Baghdad, …. Bahá'u'lláh instructed him to take up his residence in Beirut where he was frequently of service to those Bahá'ís travelling to 'Akká. After the ascension of Bahá'u'lláh, he moved to Alexandretta (Iskandarun), where he died in 1910.… 'was the recipient of more than 150 Tablets revealed for him by Bahá'u'lláh, and 250 Tablets revealed by 'Abdu'l-Bahá.' Dr. Ekbal believes that '… Muhammad Mustafa was probably the recipient of the highest number of Tablets, both from Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l- Bahá.' (in) Memorials of the Faithful (he was described in glowing terms.)
Moojan Momen (1982). "The Trial of Mullā 'Alī Basṭāmī: A Combined Sunnī-Shī'ī Fatwā against the Bāb". Journal of the British Institute for Persian Studies. 20: 113–143. JSTOR 4299725. (After the arrest of Mullá `Alí)…Mírzá Mustafá Baghdádí, whose father was a leading Shaikhí of Baghdad at this time, describes what ensued: 'And when the messenger (i.e. Mullá `Alí] came to Baghdad, the governor imprisoned him and placed the books and letter in the council chamber (al-majlis). My father Shaikh Muhammad used to visit the messenger in prison every day and heard the Word of God from him for three months. He used to teach what he heard to the seekers and, in this brief time, many of these people became believers; for example. ..[Mírzá Mustafá here gives a list of names]. And when government saw that the affair was gaining ground day by day, the aforementioned Walí, Najíb Páshá, ordered the ulama from all parts to present themselves in Baghdad.'… (a second account) which make no mention of the Shí`í-Sunní disagreement but deny that Mullá `Alí recanted his belief. The following is the account of the trial in Mírzá Mustafá al-Baghdádí's autobiographical sketch: 'And the messenger [i.e. Mullá `Alí] was summoned to that awesome meeting, and they asked him concerning the author of the cause and he answered, 'The awaited Spirit of Truth has appeared, and he is the one promised in the writings (suhuf) of God and His books.' He recited to them some of the verses and prayers and summoned them to believe. So the cause became of great importance to them, and they arose to denounce it and remonstrated with arrogance. They concurred in pronouncing his unbelief, and decreed the death and annihilation of the messenger.'
Amanat, Abbas (1981). Early Years of the Babi Movement - background and development (PhD). Oxford University. pp. iv, 212, 216–8, 241–2, 244, 247, 249, 251, 253, 261, 263, 264–5, 268, 432. OCLC 312165527. Baghdadi, Aqa Muhammad Mustafa ibn(son of) Shaykh Muhammad Shibl… Aqa Muhammad Mustafaal-Baghdadi, whose father was a well known mujtahid amongst the Shaykhis, records that before the appearance of the Bab 'all the adherants [i.e. Shaykhis] in Baghdad and its outskirts were mournful at the departure of the late Sayyid, but in the meantime they remained vigilant and watchful for the appearance of the "Promised One" [Zuhur al-Mu'ud] till they came to the honour of his presence.'… Rawlinson, the contemporary British representative in Baghdad who recorded certain details about Mulla Ali's mission, confirms that 'a considerable section of the Sheeahs (Shi'is) of Najaf supported Mulla Ali, while Aqa Muhammad Mustafa Baghdadi mentions various groups of students and adherents who following their mujtahids, were attracted to the new movement. Qatil also confirms the overwhelming support of the Shaykhis prior to the occurrence of the first signs of strong Balasari opposition.… However the majority of those who were regarded as confirmed believers were Shaykhi students or those who previously held some relation with Sayyid Kazim. As far as can be traced, of the total of more than one hundred converts in 'Atabat, nearly half were either Persian or of Persian origin. Of the remaining half more than two-thirds were natives of Iraq who resided in Karbila', Najaf, Baghdad and its neighbourhood. The origin of the remaining one-third is not known.(credited to Baghdadi) The Arab group included some mujtahids of relative importance such as Shaykh Bashir Najafi, a mujtahid of 75 years of age(credited to Baghdadi)… Haji Muhammad Karradi, an aged sarraf who was an officer in the Ottoman army before settling in Baghdad and joining Rashfl's literary circle. He composed qasidihs in praise of Rashti (credited to Baghdadi) … Amongst them … a certain Haji 'Abd al-Muttalib, a resident of Kazimayn, who later in 1264 provided the necessary means for fifty Arab and Persian Babis of Iraq to travel to Iran and participate in the march from Khurasan to Mazandaran, may be mentioned(credited to Baghdadi)… Another Shaykhi dignitary, Shaykh Muhammad Shibl Baghdadi, was also invited presumably to represent the Arab followers of Rashti. But being a believer in the Bab he decided not to participate in the trial. 'He left Baghdad in haste since he reckoned that the vali, intended to obtain approval for the refutation of the cause of God'.(credited to Baghdadi)… Far from the excitement and publicity which surrounded his case, Mulla Ali was spending his third month in the Baghdad gaol. Through some contacts that he managed to establish with the outside, he was still able to transmit his teachings Baghdadi reports; 'My father, Shaykh Muhammad, who visited the "messenger" every day in the gaol, heard from him the "Word of God" [Kalamatallah] for the period of three months. He [i.e. Shaykh Muhammad] then delivered whatever he had heard [from Bastami] to the believers. During this brief period, a great number of people were converted'.… The growing interest shown in the case by the public must, no doubt, have encouraged the vali to set the date for the Baghdad trial. Baghdadi states: 'when the Government saw that the following of the cause [i.e. the Babi movement] is increasing day by day, the valit Najib Pasha ordered the ulama to be present in Baghdad.'… As a result of this objection, Mulla Ali Bastami was closely cross-examined. Nearly all sources agree that his belief in the contents of the new Furqan was scrutinised by the court. But his reply differs from one source to another. Baghdadi states that in reply to the court's question about the identity of Sahib al-Amr, Bastami maintained that; 'He is the righteous expected soul. He appeared and he is the one who was anticipated by the Holy Books'. The author even goes as far as to suggest that Mulla Ali 'glorified the Cause' by reciting some of the verses and prayers of the Bab to the jury and invited them to recognise the Bab's call.… Such sharp contrast between the above sources, prevents a firm conclusion regarding Bastami's response being reached (adding in the footnote:)!! Baghdadi a zelaous Babi perhaps on this occasion only relates the recollections of his father's who in turn was absent from the trial. Further, his sympathy towards Bastami perhaps prevented him or his father from saying something which in their mind could damage the image of Mulla Ali.…(end mention of Baghdadi in the footnote).…
Amanat, Abbas (1989). Resurrection and Renewal. Ithaca, New York, US: Cornell University Press. pp. xv, 213, 215, 228–9, 232, 234, 300, 307–9, 312, 315, 320, 323, 427. ISBN 0-8014-2098-9.
Anderson, Eileen Littrell (1992). Qurratu'l-Ayn Tahirih: a study in transformational leadership (PhD). United States International University. pp. 14, 53–4, 115, 139. OCLC 45072741. 304049413.
Mírzá Habíbu’lláh Afnán’s Khátirát-i-Hayát; translated by Ahang Rabbani (2007). "Memories of My Life Translation of Mírzá Habíbu'lláh Afnán's Khátirát-i-Hayát" (PDF). Online Journal of Bahá‟í Studies. 1. Houston, TX: 350, 365. ISSN 1177-8547.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doing us all a favor and closing this one early. Missvain (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Behrad Shahriari[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This was CSD A7 tagged by User:CommanderWaterford but it has been continually removed by IPs. Shahriari fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Full source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article very good references and very number site— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk • contribs)
Keep The article has excellent sources such as Ganja Music and imdb. In my opinion, the article should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alone ghpo (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IMDB; having a page on IMDb is not an indicator of notability. Ganja Music is about as unreliable as it gets. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis - this entire article is pure spam and there is absolutely nothing about him in a WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.google.com/search?kgmid=/g/11gy89ns9c&hl=en-IR&q=behrad+shahriari&kgs=80aa42732195894b&shndl=0&source=sh/x/kp&entrypoint=sh/x/kp			This is a Google search not a source	✘ No
https://mehravaz.com/tag/%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9%88%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C/	?		This is just a link to download one of his songs	✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12427668/bio			IMDb is an unacceptable source for a living person	✘ No
https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Behrad-Shahriari/Delbandam/amp			These are just some lyrics, not a reference	✘ No
https://ahangify.com/artists/5b3a2d3fc85f881e175b0645			Self-published Spotify-like page	✘ No
https://aloonak.com/behrad-shahriari-delbandam/			More self-published media	✘ No
https://www.irantunez.com/artist/behrad-shahriari	?		Links to download his MP3s	✘ No
https://www.prince2music.ir/behrad-shahriari-ghabl-az-to/	?		Yet again links to download his MP3s	✘ No
https://nex1music.ir/tag/behrad-shahriari/	?		More spam links	✘ No
https://mrtehran.com/artist/2266			Another music app profile page	✘ No
https://fazmusiciha.com/%D8%A2%D9%87%D9%86%DA%AF-%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D9%86%D9%85/			Another spam MP3 link	✘ No
https://aloonak.com/behrad-shahriari-pashimoonam/			Another self-published site	✘ No
https://www.mybia2music.com/113923339/behrad-shahriari-tanhaye-tanha			Links to download his songs	✘ No
https://www.dalfak.com/w/euh1z/%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B4	?		A video of him singing	✘ No
https://upmusics.com/%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B7%D8%A8-%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%85/			Unreliable source, no significant coverage of him, just a posting of his lyrics	✘ No
https://www.ganja2music.com/771565/behrad-shahriari-eshtebah/		Ganja2music is obviously unreliable	More download links	✘ No
https://www.telewebion.com/episode/1321859			Video uploaded by him or someone connected to him	✘ No
https://www.music-single.com/			More spam links	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep In my opinion, the article is qualified. Of course, more corrections are needed to make the claims credible, but for now I see no reason to remove them. The article must remain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.212.138.108 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Yes, you are right But instead of deleting the article, please help the article and add it to the source. This is my only request. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk • contribs) 2021-05-09T17:09:37 (UTC)

Second vote by this person; I recommend a canvassing or puppeteering investigation for the "keep" voters thus far. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Spiderone, WP:SPAM, no signs of notability CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spiderone's source analysis is convincing, and it represents all that can be found with both the Persian and English spellings of the musician's name. The article is clearly an attempted promotion for a musician that has gotten himself into all of his country's typical social media and streaming sites. Those are not reliable sources and only show that he and his music can be found online. Wikipedia articles are supposed to serve a different purpose. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Google search does not turn up any reliable sources that are independent of the subject and talk about the subject in depth. All sources used in the article are self-published and user-generated sites or retailers and fail to establish notability. This is a WP:SPAM page. --Ashley yoursmile! 08:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't vote on subjects for which references are in a language I neither speak or read. However, I'm troubled that all the keep votes are seemingly the result of canvasing and sock puppetry. Also, Spiderone's source analysis is about as damning as one can get. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current SPI open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aliasghar ghorbandokht. Aliasghar ghorbandokht and Alone ghpo have actually already been CU-blocked on Wikimedia but the Wikipedia SPI hasn't been closed yet. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spiderone's accurate analysis and Doomsdayer. When will the keep voters (I mean voter) learn that download links, mp3 and videos are not reliable sources? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:53, 11 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1st Diorama International Film Festival & Market[edit]

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

Article about the first annual running of a new film festival, not properly referenced as notable under our inclusion standards for film festivals. As usual, film festivals can certainly have annual splitouts if they can be properly sourced (see: Cannes, Berlin, Toronto), but this is not just automatically extended to every film festival that exists without considering sourceability or lack thereof. But the sourcing here isn't establishing this film festival as noteworthy, consisting entirely of bad sources like the festival's own self-published website, its own self-published press releases, and non-notable and unreliable blogs, with not a hint of any real coverage about the festival in any real media being shown at all. I'm of course willing to withdraw this if somebody with more skill in reading Indian languages like Hindi, Marathi, Bengali or Gujarati than I have can find legitimate sources to repair this with, but it's not entitled to keep an article that's being sourced like this. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article would have it seem they only held it in 2019 and nothing since, as there are no updates. I googled, it appears they've held one also in 2020 and maybe 2021, but I could only find 3 articles about it. I doubt this is a notable event. Oaktree b (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the whole point here is that this article is about the 2019 event itself — coverage of 2020 or 2021 would entail separate articles, not updates to this one. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 12 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 as it passes WP:GNG per consensus. (non-admin closure) Hocus00 (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dubno[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG CeltJungleSnake (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in many reliable websites including [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] and many more. He should pass for WP:GNG. Edamdual (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of independent reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. It's an obvious keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Edamdual above. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Edamdual. Powerful Karma (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Missvain (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Masood Ahmad[edit]

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

Lacks reliable sources. Fails WP:NPOL CeltJungleSnake (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - Hi, I am going to improve the article of Mr. Masood Ahmad. Please don't delete article of Dr. Masood Ahmad. Shabeelko (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is now sufficient evidence of having been elected to the legislature. (It was added after the nomination was made, so it wasn't an unreasonable nomination at the time. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he is a member of a state legislature, and there are now references. ... discospinster _talk 16:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a member of Legislative Assembly. Less Unless (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Crystal-clear WP:NPOL pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:52, 11 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 18:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamshid Bayrami[edit]

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

This article has existed for many years now, and I came across this article and I was trying to understand more about him . From what I saw this article does not meet WP notability criteria's, for me it should be speedy deleted. Mardetanha (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 15:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 15:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete: The only achievement of the person is taking one photo. Nothing is outstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erfan2017 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion I can't find any independent substantial in-depth coverage of this artist that would justify having an article.Valueyou (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG fail.--- Possibly (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Scouts Canada#History. Missvain (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Blain[edit]

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

Biography (BLP?) of a former chief executive of the Canadian chapter of an international organization, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for organizational chief executives. Winning the organization's own internal awards for its own internal work is not a notability freebie if your only source is the organization's own self-published content about itself -- the extent to which any award counts as a notability-maker for Wikipedia purposes hinges on the extent to which that award does or doesn't get media coverage to establish its significance, and simply using primary sources to verify the award isn't enough. But there are no other sources being cited here at all, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any independent or reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 15:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Scouts_Canada#History. --evrik ^(talk) 16:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect --hroest 13:22, 14 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) - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 18:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sirajudheen KP[edit]

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

Cannot see how the subject meets WP:FILMMAKER. References do not meet the criteria. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 13:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rich_Smith! Could you check the present version and see if it fits the WP:FILMMAKER criteria? I have tried to show how his second film Vaanku was a notable release by discussing a few of its reviews, and how it received praise for its "bold subject" if you would. Hope to hear soon from you. Cheers! — JosephJames 09:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 13:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 13:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 9 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. Hog Farm _Talk 04:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scrotum Grinder[edit]

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

Unnotable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Short-lived underground hc punk band with a great name, but I am afraid they are not notable for Wikipedia inclusion. Tagged for sources since 2016. The less-than-stellar sourcing is an unreliable looking site and a site which is unavailable by now. Google search only returned the usual blogs, youtube videos, databases, download links and retail sites. No evidence of notable labels or members. Not notable. COI also applies, as "Masterofpunk25" has only edited this article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even their media-baiting awesome name got them noticed by reliable music journalists. The nominator is correct -- the band can only be found in the usual retail and streaming services, plus a few unreliable blogs and self-generated sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:25, 10 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 CNN Philippines Newsroom#As a noontime newscast. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newsday (9News)[edit]

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

Notability tag since October 2014. Unsourced since October 2012, no attempts in improvement. This short-lived newscast (October 2012–March 2015) may not meet notability guidelines for TV programs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CNN Philippines Newsroom, transferring information as needed to that article's subsection 'Background/As a noontime newscast'. Meticulo (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 9 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 11:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annamalai k[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. - TheWikiholic (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win, but the only other attempted claim of preexisting notability here, being state-level vice-president of his political party, is not a notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about his work either. And the only footnote here is covering him in the context of being charged with, but not verifiably convicted of, a crime, which is (a) not grounds for notability either, per WP:PERP, and (b) not enough coverage to get him over GNG all by itself even if it wasn't posing a PERP issue. Bearcat (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yup, as the nom says, fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom, fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:36, 13 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 11:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ebad Al Rahman Mosque[edit]

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

The Ebad Al Rahman Mosque is not generally notable (WP:GNG) and has no special features that distinguish it from the many other mosques in Amman. The short article has cited no references since it was created in Sep 2016. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nomination. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable mosque. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:37, 13 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 11:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Hussein College Mosque[edit]

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

The Al-Hussein College Mosque is not generally notable (WP:GNG) and has no special features that distinguish it from the many other mosques in Amman. The article contains no references and none has been added since it was tagged 5 years ago. The article appears to be either poorly written or the subject of automatic translation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't see what is notable about this mosque, no references are given for WP:GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Republicans[edit]

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

Can't find a single independent, reliable source. Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the phrase Banana Republicans seems to have some currency, this book is totally lacking significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Just press releases mostly. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Berg, Jeremy (June 2004). "Book Review: Banana Republicans". Riverwest Currents. Archived from the original on 2004-06-24. Retrieved 2021-05-12.
  The book review notes: "Though it obviously sides with the left wing, Banana Republicans works in the finest traditions of objective journalism. Rampton and Stauber are interested in facts, pure and simple. Never once do they say 'this is bad' and leave it at that. Everything is backed up by solid reporting. For any conservatives who read this book, it will hopefully serve notice as to what their leaders have been doing, and how much truth there is to their claims. For liberals, it is an explanation of why one viewpoint dominates popular discourse, and a starting point for evening out the balance."
2. "Book Notes. Books on Bush. Banana Republicans: How the Right-Wing is Turning America Into a One-Party State". Multinational Monitor. Vol. 25, no. 5/6. May–June 2004. p. 44. Retrieved 2021-05-12.
  The book review notes: "Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber contend in Banana Republicans that Scissorgate was the product of a sophisticated, multi-faceted right-wing attack machine. It is pretty hard at this point to deny that such a machine exists; Rampton and Stauber do a nice job of reviewing its components and the independent components function as a whole."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Banana Republicans to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The book has received two reviews: Riverwest Currents and Multinational Monitor.
Cunard (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced Riverwest Currents is a reliable source. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NBOOK. ^[1]^[2]

References

^ Bence, Charlotte (July–August 2004). "Unpeeling the Truth". Socialist Review.
^ Luconi, Stefano (2005). "Reviews". Cercles. ISSN 1292-8968.

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NBOOK. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NBOOK. Multiple book reviews. Archrogue (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already deleted through CSD— Maile (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

MTJ (clothing)[edit]

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

Non Notable company fails WP:ORG Sonofstar (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MTJ (clothing) is stub it has references from Pakistan Biggest News Source and i can add 10 more references but it Article was stub if you want i can expand it and add more refeneces

Speedy delete: per CSD G11, clearly promo CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok If you wanna delete it then delete it you guy's are clearly more professional then me..

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Commander, this could have been speedied; but since we're here, I'm !voting for vanilla delete on the grounds of WP:COMPANY non-notability, with WP:TOOSOON as the cherry on top. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The creator is a confirmed sock of Zaid Zayd, so this is technically eligible for G5. --Blablubbs|talk 15:04, 10 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 09:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Mary Poppins attraction[edit]

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

Per WP:TOOSOON. The ride has been indefinitely postponed, and it is unclear if it will ever be built (see [15]). Uncle Dick (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Uncle Dick (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Uncle Dick (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a thing. I SO want to see WP:NOTATHING as a policy. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Suonii180 (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, just in case it ever gets built. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:53, 13 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) 01:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Noroozi[edit]

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

The subject doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC or WP:BLP. There are two references that are from Spotify and Apple music which can't be taken into consideration. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 06:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:SINGER. Not many references are avaialble in a Google search other than the ones mentioned in the article. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 06:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost completely lacking in any details, fails to establish notability per the above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources on him and the fact that he, as a type this, has zero monthly listeners on Spotify doesn't give me confidence that reliable sources can be found Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable musician -Xclusivzik (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This could be a Speedy Delete under WP:A7 for making no statement of notability. Searching is tough because there appears to be several different people of this name in Iran, and there is a singer with the very similar name Ali Norouzi. Without more info in the article it is hopeless to search for THIS guy. A more targeted search for a singer of this name reveals a few social media and streaming entries, and that's all. He exists, I guess, but that's not enough. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:57, 11 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 09:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tallmans, West Virginia[edit]

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

Topos show a point on the railroad with little development. Searching brings up fairly little, with the coverage I found being stuff such as a passing mention in a fishing guide. Not in Leavengood's history of Wood County or Hamill Kenny's directory of WV place names. There's a bit of search engine noise from Charles Tallman, who coached WVU in football in the 1930s, but this doesn't seem to be a notable location. Hog Farm _Talk 06:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 06:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 06:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in the Encyclopedia of West Virginia either. I can find nothing. This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 09:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Prata[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PROF. No paper with over 100 citations. No notable awards. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an additional sentence in the first para under "Career" to clarify funding awards. The number of citations seems to be a very arbitrary definition of notability, as it depends on the number of other people working in the sector who are likely to quote papers. In my case I have published a book with over 800 citations and others with over 250, but I would NOT consider myself as notable as Prata. This is a distinguished scientist who has held positions in important universities/colleges in Portugal and the UK, and I am rather surprised that her notability is being challenged. Roundtheworld (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:PROF no. 7 "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" for her work as a commentator on Portuguese news services. Furius (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Strongly fails NPROF C1 in comparison to her 125 coauthors with 12+ papers, per Scopus:

Total citations: avg: 10673, med: 3321, Prata: 1615.

Total papers: avg: 163, med: 71, P: 49.

h-index: avg: 38, med: 28, P: 22.

Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 1172, med: 408, P: 224. 2nd: avg: 629, med: 297, P: 128. 3rd: avg: 441, med: 232, P: 94. 4th: avg: 359, med: 189, P: 90. 5th: avg: 302, med: 158, P: 73.

However, given the time spread of articles using her as an expert voice, interviewing her, and profiling her research, I believe she does meet C7. These are most of the news articles I got from Google: her appearance on a podcast (Dec 2020, probably doesn't count toward notability), an interview by RTP (Nov 2019, generally interviews do not count toward notability), several quotes from her as an expert in a Notícias Magazine article (Oct 2020, partial count toward C7), an interview in DN Life (Apr 2020, maybe partial count, as it does give somewhat of a biographical introduction to her), another DN article related to her oxytocin work (Jan 2020, partial count? quoted/interviewed? as an expert), a DN article on an expert panel she was on (Nov 2018, maybe partial toward C7), a brief quote from her as an expert in an Observador article (Aug 2017, not significant enough for C7), another Notícias article substantially covering her and several other neuroscientists' research (Mar 2017, SIGCOV), and her expert opinion as part of another panel reported by Observador (Nov 2015, maybe partial toward C7). JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per JoelleJay's comments on activities beyond citations. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as explained above. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hore-Ruthven[edit]

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

BLP of an unsuccessful political candidate who does not otherwise meet notability requirements. Mccapra (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG WP:NPOL Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win, but this is not making or sourcing any discernible claim that he has preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him into Wikipedia independently of the candidacy — it is referenced entirely to his own self-published LinkedIn résumé and the websites of organizations he's been directly affiliated with. But that's not how you make a person notable for his work with non-profit organizations, and there's no evidence of any GNG-worthy media coverage about his work for those organizations being shown at all to establish notability for that. Bearcat (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had he won the mayoral contest, he might have had a case for notability (just; maybe), but he didn't, so he doesn't. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 10 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. Consensus is that the problems in the article can be fixed by editing, rather than deletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Vetter (farmer)[edit]

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

This is promotional anfd non-notable .

The references are mostly local notices, and promotional interviews where he says what he pleases-- een the LA Times feature is a rewritten promotional interview, not a true news story. The material is over-personal, in the typical PR fashion. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sustained GNG coverage over 24+ years in newspapers, books, magazine, video and film. The OPs conclusion this is all the result of self-promotion is not well supported. Each source would need to be examined to explain why it is not reliable - no doubt some fraction are unreliable, but that doesn't make the entire article non-notable. (I have cleaned up some sources and added another). -- GreenC 19:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Using the newspaper.com archives [16] I see a lot of mentions of it in a lot of places over many years. He is quoted often as an authority of the subject of organic farming. He is the subject of the documentary "Dreaming of a vetter world". Dream Focus 23:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Organic farming in the United States. I looked over the references in the article and all they are is blog posts, stories about the documentary, or on other things about organic farming that only mention him in passing. There's no source that is an in-depth reliable discussion of him or his life though. That said, I think a solid case could be made for an article on the documentary about him, since there's obviously sources about it, but that doesn't mean he deserves a separate article himself. Let alone that what little is knowing about him or what he did from the few reliable sources there are can't just be mentioned in the documentaries article instead of this one. In the meantime though, there is not enough good, usable sources for an article solely about him. Not every single that had a documentary made about them warrants an individual article "because documentary." I think the salvageable content would be a good addition to Organic farming in the United States though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As GreenC stated, there has been sustained GNG coverage for over 20 years. The film about him produced by noted film industry people tops it off. The article does need some work in both copy editing and sourcing. I expect there are many more sources out there covering him and his work in the 1970s - 1990s which might not be easily accessible via google. Thriley (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have nothing to say on notability of the subject, since the sources seem to be rather hit and miss. Though I also have a bias against the subject, so it's better if I abstain. But I just wanted to note that, if kept, there needs to be some work and focus on making sure any agricultural and scientific claims are kept away from pseudoscience. For example, the Early life section right now presents Vetter's claims on pesticides as if they are true (and from an incredibly shoddy source used at that), when they are very much not. Vetter is a well known pseudoscience pusher in the scientific community, so writing in the article needs to be careful and meet neutrality of writing and reliability of sourcing standards. Silver seren^C 21:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Silver. I made this page after reading about Vetter’s influence on Fred Kirschenmann, someone you might also have qualms with. As these older organic farmers age and die and the “organic movement” shifts in ideology, I think it is important to document them encyclopedically. I remember you tried to find some major written criticism of Vetter and were unable to find any then. Could you check again? This page definitely needs some improvement to shift it away from being interpreted as a fan page. A nice criticism section would be good. Thriley (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just difficult for Vetter in particular because of the name commonality with the "bubble boy" David Vetter. Though, at the same time, it really does feel like it comes down to that Vetter hasn't received mainstream coverage outside of niche organic agriculture sources. The best there is from what i'm seeing is Nebraska news sources, which would be local coverage. He never got big enough for science skepticism sites to cover him. Silver seren^C 23:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m surprised how little press the documentary got with the producers it had. It’s the kind of film that would have been in some kind of “farmer in the heartland” NY Times story. Thriley (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Clearly a noteable Farmer per Dream. An important contributor to the organic & sustainable farming movement. I don't agree the article is promotional or warrants an advert tag. It already included reasonable criticism, such as " He was considered strange by his neighbors for his beliefs and farming practices". Silver seren made a good point about non mainstream views on pesticides being presented in the encyclopedia's voice, but for me editor Thriley nicely addressed with this edit. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think someone's neighbors considering them wierd really does it when it comes to making an article neutral and balanced. Especially in this case because the critism isn't that he was an odd guy. Its that made a bunch of pseudoscientific claims. Adamant1 (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no bunch of pseudoscientific claims, or at least not in the article. Sorry if my previous vote implied that the views pesticides can kill wildlife & harm soil are not mainstream. They are. (Though arguably various specific brands dont cause long term harm if used carefully.) The problem was more relating to the context re the questioning of pesticides' value. (Not that there is any harm in questioning such things in and of itself.) Anyhow, for me editor Thriley has already resolved the issue. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His claims were that they didn't improve yields and he also ignored high pesticide use in organic farming because they were "natural" pesticides, which have actually been found to be more damaging to the environment. Those were the claims he made that were not backed up by science, not to mention that proper use of pest specific pesticides aren't harmful for the environment or wildlife. One also has to consider the plants themselves and the dozens of carcinogenic pesticides they naturally produce, which can actually have breeding mutations that make them dangerous, such as the Lenape potato. Not to mention that the reference used is both primary and makes further non-scientific claims. Silver seren^C 19:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All righty. The claim currently there is that in his experience they don't make yields "much higher" - which obviously could be true depending on specifics. I don't doubt he's made several non mainstream claims that aren't in the article. But this is no reason to delete – if it was, we'd have to destroy countless biographies on A-list grade high achieving people. If you feel strongly that the 'Organic & Non-GMO' source should be removed, why not be bold, editor Thriley seems most collegial and quite possibly won't mind. Without disagreeing with your other points, I dont find them convincing as a reason to delete. But maybe Im missing something. Per the fact Ive seen you around for over 10 years and consider you an outstanding editor, I'll take it on faith this is the case. So downgrading my vote & I wont take further part in this AfD. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thriley and I are friends, actually, but I am abstaining from voting or being involved in the article proper since I work with plants and live in Nebraska, so Vetter is a well known antagonistic figure in university science here. And I don't want my bias to be involved with him as the subject. I was honestly surprised there wasn't more big name reliable source coverage of him, since Thriley did ask me to check around before and, even considering the bubble boy name conflict difficulty, there really wasn't much. Outside of organic farming specific websites, I only found two articles in Nebraska newspapers. His infamy in the scientific agricultural community seemingly hasn't translated into actual news coverage, for some reason. It's kind of weird, to be honest. Other contemporaries of his that are at the same level of notoriety have received a much larger amount of coverage. Silver seren^C 20:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the lack of sources is due to his notoriety. Perhaps Nebraska newspapers don’t want to wade into it at all. Compare Vetter’s coverage to Vermont dairy farmer Jack Lazor whose article I created after his death. The media industry in Vermont is much friendlier to organic growers as it is pretty much the only growth field in agriculture in the state and of course many Vermont residents are skeptical of modern farming methods. Thriley (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may also be that Vetter deliberately does not seek press unlike some figures in the organic industry. Thriley (talk) 21:48, 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) 22:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to TV Patrol. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Patrol[edit]

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

Well, it fails WP:GNG. ----Rdp060707|talk 01:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 01:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TV Patrol, but only its airdates and host. A kid's version of the regular newscast. Nate • (chatter) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TV Patrol Fails WP:TVSHOW per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to TV Patrol Fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. Abrilando232 (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs aired by GMA Network. (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Report[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. ----Rdp060707|talk 01:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 01:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a newsbrief program with no independent sources (the source here comes from GMA News which runs this newsbrief itself, therefore not independent). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete A newsbrief title, occasionally expanded because breaking news started during the newsbrief. American news orgs don't have newsbrief articles, along with any other country, so this precedent needs to be stopped. Nate • (chatter) 05:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary:brief#Noun: Common name for news briefs. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not worldwide, and not with both words capitalized. Nate • (chatter) 19:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by GMA Network or wiktionary:brief#Noun Fails WP:TVSHOW per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by GMA Network only need more references, because it's Fail WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. Abrilando232 (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by GMA Network per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Night Network per WP:ATD. ✗plicit 01:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Get Stuffed[edit]

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

Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Night Network. This programme existed, and had some success, but wasn't notable. Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fables characters (New York Fables)[edit]

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

Duplicative content of List of Fables characters. All the content still exists within the main list. On top of that, they're also just completely unnecessary content forks that do nothing to solve the issues of the main character list. Two of the lists were deleted via uncontested PRODs and one was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fables characters (Thirteenth Floor Fables).

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nuke it and List of Fables Characters at the same time. Pile of cruft. Op47 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots of uncited fancruft. Waxworker (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - The main Fables character list is a huge mess that needs some massive cleanup and removal of non-notable characters, but attempting to split it out into multiple, duplicative lists is not the way to do it. None of those sub-divisions of characters actually has any sources describing them as a set that would allow any of them to pass WP:NLIST. Rorshacma (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 01:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment X'nter[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping mall in Jakarta. Did not pass WP:NCORP. The only news article about the place is about its shutdown. Searches on Google turns up mirrors to this Wikipedia article. SunDawn (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 9 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 01:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Clement's (cocktail)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The recipe is on a few websites and nothing else, no reliable source coverage. Rusf10 (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 9 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 Dieter: Der Film#Soundtrack. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter: Der Film (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

For this article, there's nothing to find, not even an Allmusic review. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the movie article. --Kuatrero (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dieter: Der Film. I forgot to vote on this one after making a comment long ago. This soundtrack article offers nothing but a track list and some trivia about who is on it, with no indication of notability for the album as a whole on any of its individual songs. A simple redirect to the parent film will suffice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dieter: Der Film. Kolma8 (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subhadram[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE Kolma8 (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't notable Malayalam film. It has not received any significant coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:NFO Ashique2020 (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashar Yahya[edit]

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

This article focuses on the company MadMax and the subject's charity. Several of the sources used do not cite this person by name, and I could not find any more in my own search. IMO does not pass WP:GNG. Some of the content could probably be merged into Cricket for a Cause. Mbdfar (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mbdfar (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles can’t be merged with cricket for a cause. That has been run by other people now, and the reddit articles do not explicitly reveal his name, however, it has been confirmed in now deleted posts. This can be verified on wall street bets or the gme sub reddit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afridi2016 (talk • contribs)

@Afridi2016: Reddit is not a reliable source and can't be used to establish notability. Mbdfar (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@mbdfar saying to merge the page with the charities is not a good idea. The charity is registered entity in the UAE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afridi2016 (talk • contribs)

@Afridi2016: I just meant the "Charity Work" section. "He is also known for starting Cricket for a Cause in Dubai, and has raised over $50,000 for children in developing countries. [8] He claimed the inspiration came to him after visiting developing countries, and seeing how children his age did not have access to a basic education[9]." could probably be reworded and merged. Mbdfar (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what about his project at kansas university? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afridi2016 (talk • contribs)

Seems irrelevant. Looks like his homework. It shouldn't be merged anywhere. Mbdfar (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its a research paper used in a MBA case study. Not homework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afridi2016 (talk • contribs)

Nowhere in that reference does it say it was citied in any case study. Even if it did, the subject still wouldn't pass WP:ACADEMIC. Hell, it could a report done by a totally different person with the same name. That claim needs another independent source regardless. Mbdfar (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Sources not mentioning the subject or his alleged Reddit alias have been removed. This leaves a college website profile page, a meme he posted on reddit, two articles on Cricket for a Cause, and one in depth interview about his experiences at college. Non-notable. Mbdfar (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS and not WP:GNG. Reads like a promotional column. -- DaxServer (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per DaxServer. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - there is clearly no consensus to delete the page. Most comments and arguments support keeping, perhaps with a separate discussion via RFC on the wider topic, or a merge discussion in due course. Giant Snowman 10:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

I fail to see any evidence that this list is anything but an indiscriminate collection of every news report of a fatal canine attack (none of these events are notable occurrences, seeing none of them have an article), failing both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If there's something encyclopedic to be written about this, it goes in a more general article about fatal canine attacks, not as this poor example of list-cruft. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to be a collection of information on a well-defined category of well-documented events, nothing indiscriminate about the list. Has encyclopedic value as documenting a series of horrific events which are rare but sadly not rare enough. PamD 07:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well defined, well documented indeed. Unsettling reading, but quite a few contributors to a comprehensive list - individual events might not be notable, the collection is, IMHO. If you can have a List of Chinese Super League hat-tricks, you can have this list. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That list also appears to be WP:NOTSTATS, and WP:OSE isn't really an argument. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper WP:NOTNEWS. This is essentially just a collection of news reports as well as two lists of stats that appear to contradict each other. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced information on an important topic. NemesisAT (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is it an "important topic"? WP:ILIKEIT ("it's important") isn't really a good argument. How is this ever going to be anything but routine coverage by the newspapers? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage by newspapers but as a whole it documents a valuable topic. It does not make sense for this article to be deleted when an article on the same subject in the United States has been retained. NemesisAT (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of a previous discussion for that other article (which closed as "no consensus", not "keep"). That does not change my arguments. In any case, consensus (or lack thereof) can change. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States, though I think it unlikely a consensus will be reached on the encyclopedicness/value of these articles any time soon, and feel these deletion nominations invariably generate more heat than light and are bad for the encyclopedia's culture as a whole. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom redirects here. An article about that subject needs to be created and the list should be better composed in paragraphs. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Deaths due to animal attacks shows ample articles like this, which have been kept in past AFDs. 85 references in this article right now. The news always covers a dog killing someone. Government stats referenced as well, this something nations keep track of. It is therefore a notable thing. Dream Focus 04:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many dubious lists that exist on WP, this is just another one of them. For one example, take the entry for 1772 Gomastah of Kissendeo, India - torn apart by wild dogs. What does the source say? It says "very likely may have been" torn apart by wild dogs. Was he, or was he not? The article ends by basically saying that stories out of India in newspapers come with embellishments. Indeed! Unclear what the entry has to do with this topic - was India once a part of the United Kingdom, or did someone confuse the UK with the British Empire? Yet there are editors here that bear witness that this list is a well-sourced and accurate piece of work. William Harris (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an issue with a particular list item, fix the item instead of deleting the list. Astro$01 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, however you appear to have completely missed my point. William Harris (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-sourced list of incidents in a notable category well-covered by the media. Every one does not justidy its own article, but there's absolutely no problem with a list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this could be better covered as an actual article, not as a WP:NOTNEWS listing of every fatal dog attack. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and readers would best be served by an article which goes into more analysis based on secondary, ideally academic sources (is there a historical trend? have dogs become more or less deadly? does it have anything to do with [insert reason x]?). Not by listcruft of every news report of it. At which point it would become something better than a list and go at Fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an argument against all lists rather than this one in particular. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This a well-sourced list. In response to the offered rationales for deletion:

The WP:NOTNEWS fails because 1) the article does not contain “routine” news reporting - “dog bites man” is routine, but “dog kills man” is a rare event that can generate multiple news stories over several days, including analysis of dog & human interaction, as well as intense, emotional commentary; 2) the article is not a “news story” about one event or multiple events - it is a stand-alone list of events under a notable topic.
The WP:INDISCRIMINATE fails because it is a well-defined, stand-alone list that meets the selection criteria laid out in WP:LISTCRITERIA: unambiguous, objective, & supported by reliable sources. Astro$01 (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The list is basically WP:PROSELINE, made into a list. I maintain that a listing of every fatal dog attack is not encyclopedic, but obviously that doesn't matter cause this is going to be kept :(. A serious article about dog attacks would include stuff such as analysis etc. But that's a straw man, since I am not arguing that "fatal dog attacks" are not-notable; I'm arguing that a listing of them is nothing more than an indiscriminate level of detail. Anyways, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:PROSELINE argument fails because that standard is intended for articles written in prose paragraph form rather than stand-alone lists. If you agree that fatal dog attacks are notable events, then a list of them is legitimate under the Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA standard. Perhaps you should clarify why a list that meets the established criteria should be deleted because it is "non-encyclopedic." Astro$01 (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well defined and covered by reliable sources in a non-routine fashion. Fatal dog attacks have a bearing on public policy in terms of regulations and laws on dog ownership and upkeep of certain breeds.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWs. Each entry is cited to a single news article as a source; this is nothing more than an indiscriminate collection of random, largely unrelated events. Just because the newspapers go wild over a dog attack, does not mean it is notable. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. Further, these lists are and will always be susceptible to WP:RECENTISM by virtue of the availability of sources, so are really just a collection of recent such events. Cavalryman (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and recommend RfC. Simply because I believe any concerns about the article (verifiability, appropriate content, any BLP violations) can be resolved by normal editing, and I don't think WP:NOTNEWS can apply as the notability is on the list itself, which contains events over hundreds of years. Furthermore, the Hansard source cited in the article can be used to expand the lead and explain why the level of dog attacks led to changes in the law. Per the suggestion given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States, I would suggest a Request for comment is started to get a consensus on the appropriateness of these list articles. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the title, this isn't really a traditional list article. And I believe that "Dog attacks in the United Kingdom" is proven notable by the sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt that the topic of dog attacks is notable. The article (which truly is a list), however, is a listing of newspaper reports of fatal dog attacks in the UK [each meticulously sourced to one or a few news reports], along with a few statistics on those, and a contextless sentence about banned breeds. Once you remove the list, there's basically only a few sentences left, which would suggest a possible merge, if the corresponding non-list article existed (it unfortunately exists, so it is not a helpful red link which needs to be created, but a blue-link which redirects back, you've guessed it, to the list...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is Fatal dog attacks the "non-list article" to which you are referring? That article references this list of fatal dog attacks, so instead of proposing to delete this list, you could propose in the relevant discussion pages to move the statistics & discussion to Fatal dog attacks? Astro$01 (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was referencing Fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom. Thanks for pointing to the correct article. Although, since the one you link to has very little coverage about geographic differences (in legislation, prevention, ...), it would be an unsuitable target, and including statistics for individual countries directly there might be unhelpful (including a short statement about the general prevalence of dog attacks in various countries might be ok). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom, sorry I didn't realise that this was an existing article. I suggest merging the two, to prevent WP:FORK. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom is currently a redirect to the page under discussion, hence why I was pointing that it was unsuitable as a merge target (since it exists as an unhelpful blue link redirect...). Removing the list and moving the article to that title would be an option, but I think that's outside the scope of AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good list article and as valuable and appropriate as all the other list articles on Wikipedia including a few dozen "List of fatal..." articles. Each entry has a citation. Topic as a whole and as a list is notable because numerous statistics and studies have been published analysing fatal dog attacks (including what kind of dog and how it happened), and the subject is openly discussed in the news and is documented in legislative sessions. Fatalities are so unusual that each news article will mention the last time such a fatality happened in their area. Other related articles cover more of those fatality studies, such as in Fatal dog attacks. It looks like there are a series of articles which ought to have a template to tie them together. I added a study to the article that applies to Europe and UK. Improve the article rather than delete it. Platonk (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Mitchell, James; Bennie, Lynn; Johns, Rob. The Scottish National Party: Transition to Power. OUP Oxford. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-19-958000-2.

[2] "Chris Stephens: Trade union value in SNP future". www.scotsman.com. 14 November 2014.

[3] "SNP trade union group backs Tie LGBTI+ Scottish education campaign". Source. 12 October 2015.

[4] "SNP trade unionists in push for party to adopt total fracking ban". HeraldScotland. 29 July 2015.

[5] Belser, Eva Maria; Fang-Bär, Alexandra; Massüger, Nina; Pillai, Rekha Oleschak. States Falling Apart?: Secessionist and Autonomy Movements in Europe. Stämpfli Verlag. p. 153. ISBN 978-3-7272-5913-5.

[6] Landin, Conrad (31 July 2019). "SNP union group 'does nothing to support workers'". Morning Star.

[7] "SNP trade unionists in call for rent controls after 'tidal wave' of evictions". The National. 29 June 2020.

[8] Savage, Michael (6 May 2015). "Workers abandon traditional allegiance and switch to SNP". The Times.

[9] "In Scotland, trade unionists are already leaving Labour behind". Financial Times. 18 May 2015.

[10] Bence, Charlotte (July–August 2004). "Unpeeling the Truth". Socialist Review.

[11] Luconi, Stefano (2005). "Reviews". Cercles. ISSN 1292-8968.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]