Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is about serious nominations. For April Fool's joke nominations, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/April Fools' Day 2021.


< March 31 April 02 >

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 keep. Consensus is that this topic meets NPROF. As a point of order, the discussion could not be closed by nominator withdrawal because there are intervening significant "delete" votes, so therefore "speedy keep" does not apply. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Hanchard[edit]

Neil Hanchard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been tagged for notability which has been interfering with another editor's DYK nomination for a while now. I'm seeing if this professor is notable or not per WP:PROF to move things along either way. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Tentative Keep He does have a reasonable number of citations according to Scopus, but the article appears pretty dang promotional and he doesn't really meet the other qualifications at Prof clearly either- he's very very border line. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nightenbelle a "reasonable number" of citations is not the bar to clear, the bar to clear is the "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished? (see WP:NPROF). --hroest 16:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read WP:NPROF Which is why I felt, and still feel he is a tentative keep. Just because I read it and reached a different conclusion than you does not mean I did not read or understand the essay. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete this is a WP:TOOSOON scenario where the current citation count is rather low for his field (genetics) and it is as of yet unclear if he will pass WP:PROF#1 in the future, but he clearly does not now. --hroest 16:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Hanchard's recent publication in Nature "High-depth African genomes inform human migration and health" (which he is the senior author on) is among the most high-profile recent work in the field (featured on Nature's cover, described in a Nature editorial as "a milestone in genomics research," covered extensively in the media). This is clearly a contribution to genetics "widely considered to be significant" per WP:NPROF. Combined with his already strong publication record (substantial number of publications in top journals with significant citation rates), I think this makes him clearly notable. His service on the Board of Directors of the American Society of Human Genetics and on the advisory board of Cell Genomics provide additional evidence that he is a leader with significant impact in the field. Philepitta (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philepitta of course the journal itself will call things they publish "a milestone", they want to sell subscriptions and create buzz, whether it really is a milestone will be shown over time. So yes, that is why its WP:TOOSOON. Also, a single publication will not make the author notable, see WP:BLP1E. The inclusion criteria on WP:NPROF are more restrictive than this. Service on an advisory board by itself is also not an indication of notability but it can contribute, it is not part of WP:NPROF for good reason. In genomics, a "high" citation count is in the 100s of thousands or at least 10k or more, see Genomics on GS. Note how only PIs with 70k+ citations are in the top 100 of the field. This professor has 35x lower citation counts. So while accomplished, this person does not seem to be more than "average", see WP:NPROF "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?. --hroest 20:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not just "of course the journal itself will call things they publish "a milestone," this is Nature! Having a senior-author article published on the cover of Nature and featured in an editorial clearly indicates that Hanchard has much more impact than an "average" genomics professor. And this is also not a case of notability by single publication because it is on top of a distinguished career with a solid publication record in top journals. The ASHG and Cell Genomics leadership positions are secondary factors also pointing towards notability. And as pointed out below citation counts are pretty irrelevant in genomics. I think it's pretty clear Hanchard easily passes the "Average Professor Test." Philepitta (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am well aware what Nature is, this doesnt mean that they dont have (financial) incentives to promote the papers that they are publishing. Simply because he has one paper as a last author in Nature does not mean that he is extraordinary. As you say, he has a decent career with decent publications but nothing outstanding, this is what is expected of an average early career researcher (assistant professor/associate prof) in this field. See also the analysis from JoelleJay below that pretty much confirms this. --hroest 00:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT. Ok, so I'm going to need y'all need to forget everything you think you know about what a "high citation count" is, because today we are in MEDICAL GENETICS, which is up there with particle physics in both insane numbers of coauthors per paper and, consequently, extremely inflated citations. This is a field where someone with an MS in genetic counseling can be a middle author on 60 papers and achieve an h-index of 22 without even having a profile on their institution's website (just a name listed with all the other techs). Dr. Hanchard has 2029 coauthors, which is 2029 people with a vested interest in citing themselves. With a paper cutoff count of 20, I looked at the 51 coauthors on his most recent 15 papers (excluding those with a million authors), and the 96 people he has written 24 or more papers with (147 coauthors total). Keep in mind these coauthors include techs, non-academic industry partners, and clinicians, so overall numbers will be substantially lower than if we were to compare him only to others holding professorships/senior researcher positions ("average professor test" for C1). Here are their Scopus metrics:
Total citations: average: 6229, median: 2187, Hanchard: 1880.
Total papers: avg: 111, med: 75, H: 94.
h-index: avg: 29, med: 23, H: 26.
Top 5 highest citations: 1st: avg: 716, med: 288, H: 192. 2nd: avg: 390, med: 180, H: 157. 3rd: avg: 306, med: 140, H: 92. 4th: avg: 250, med: 114, H: 69. 5th: avg: 217, med: 90, H: 67.
68/147 coauthors have 5 papers with more than 100 citations. This is an extremely high-citation field. His highest-cited first-author paper has 38 citations, and his highest-cited last-author paper has 15 citations. From the citation metrics alone I will say I do not see him clearly standing out above others in his field -- much less so if I was to evaluate only professors/senior scientists at research institutes. That doesn't mean he doesn't meet other criteria of NPROF, however, so I will wait to !vote after seeing what materials others bring up. JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Right, pure citation count is not a good way to determine notability in genomics for many reasons -- as you point out an individual might have a minor contribution to many papers and end up with an extremely high citation count, but not be notable at all. It's also worth pointing out that genomics is a VERY broad field, and some types of papers within the field tend to be more cited than others. For example a computational tool that is widely used might rack up thousands of citations -- this doesn't say anything at all about the notability of a genomics paper on a focused biological question. It doesn't make sense to look at a paper and claim "oh, but it's a genomics paper, that means it's not important unless it has hundreds of citations." So rough citation metric analyses are mostly irrelevant here. Philepitta (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philepitta citation metrics are still relevant here because they compare like with like. They are not the only measure, but they pretty much confirm that Hanchard is "average" in the sense that his papers are cited about as much as an average researcher (postdoc/technician/professor) in the field. It is therefore pretty clear that he fails the "Average Professor Test". On top of that, his two most cited papers [1] and [2] have him very much in a middle author position as one of 54 or one of 243 authors, further diluting his claim on having a strong impact on the field. --hroest 00:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think hroest has the more reasonable takeaway from my data here. NPROF really depends on establishing significant impact, which is almost always ultimately based on citations (whether directly, or indirectly through professorships/editorships/awards). It sounds like he has made a promising discovery that merited very recent attention from Nature, but that still falls under BLP1E since it's unclear what the actual impact will be. Why not wait until that paper receives healthy citations and he gets a few more well-regarded papers? JoelleJay (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
hroest JoelleJay So, citation metrics do have some relevance, but they need to be interpreted carefully. A couple of points:
  • (1) Strong people in a field tend to work with other strong people, so comparing someone's citation count with their co-authors is not a reasonable test of whether or not they are "average." An individual coming out of a strong training environment/working with high-profile collaborators may be well above average, yet have many co-authors with significantly higher citation rates.
  • (2) In particular, highly cited papers in genomics sometimes come out of large consortia where many of the authors work together repeatedly on high-impact papers -- someone who occasionally participates in consortium papers, or who recently joined a consortium effort, could well have a lower than average impact factor for participants on these papers. Again this doesn't say anything about the notability of their papers.
  • (3) The fact that someone is a middle author on their most cited genomics paper also doesn't relate to their notability at all -- just means that they made a minor contribution to an especially influential paper. The paper alone wouldn't make them notable, but the fact that their independent first/last author papers are less cited is completely normal and expected.
  • (4) I think that media coverage of scientific articles in reputable third-party sources should, in science as in other areas of Wikipedia, also be used as an indicator of the notability of individual papers, in addition to citation counts.
  • (5) While some types of genomics papers have extremely high citation rates, others do not. It doesn't make any sense to compare the citation rate of a strong paper from an individual lab with, say, the top cited paper on Daniel Levy's publication list (#2 prof for total citations in hroest's link above), "Heart disease and stroke statistics—2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association." (~33,000 citations). Obviously this sort of report will be highly cited -- this is not relevant at all to what sort of citation count we would expect from an individual lab. It's comparing apples and oranges.
  • (6) I think a more relevant metric for how many citations an "average" paper in the field would be is the impact factor of an average journal in the field. Here's a list of genetics journals--it doesn't include all journals in the field, but gives a rough idea: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1311. The metric here is SJR which is a weighted impact factor, but spot-checking for a few of the journals, this seems to be roughly equal to impact factor. Note that even the very top journal in the list (Nature Genetics) has an impact factor of only about 30, and BMC Genomics, not on this list but a totally reasonable journal that top labs will frequently publish papers in, has an impact factor of about 4. I think that a solidly above-average paper in the field would be published in a reputable journal and have on the order of roughly 10 or more citations. Philepitta (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philepitta I totally agree, as a scientist myself I concur that citations metrics are clearly not everything, can be biased and manipulated. What would be best if we would have a committee of experts that can independently judge the impact of a person in their field. This is generally hard to assemble even in a University, and much less so on Wikipedia.
  • I agree with your point (1) and that is clearly a bias in the analysis of JoelleJay, similarly it is easier to be "a big fish in a small pond", if you only choose to work with weak people you would comparatively appear strong.
  • I agree with (2) and (3) but that would speak for an analysis where we only look at first and last author papers since it will be hard/impossible for us to judge middle author contributions.
  • I dont agree with (4) because according to WP:BLP1E in that case we should actually write about that one paper or add the coverage to Human Heredity and Health in Africa and not to the author. Unless the coverage is specifically about Hanchard, his career, life etc and not about this one paper it would be WP:BLP1E. On another note, I dont think that coverage in main stream media of scientific results helps with WP:NPROF since these are not the people to evaluate criteria #1, but it may help with WP:GNG. Often these results are "strawberries cause cancer" type of reports that a press office hypes up and may have little scientific value in the long run. I am not saying that is the case here, but for WP:NPROF it is really long-term impact in the field and not short-term hype that counts.
  • I agree with (5) and again say that we can also simply look at his first/last author publications.
  • Regarding (6) I only partially agree. In my field I often see the most impactful publications in low-tier journals since they may be useful methods or other discoveries, so looking at the impact of individual journals and the long-term impact on the research field of a paper or a whole lab is often a better assessment than just looking where they publish. Publishing in high impact journals often also has something to do with working on topics that are currently "in fashion" and may actually not have any long term impact. Again, please note that WP:PROF#1 looks for people who have a very clearly above-average impact on their field.
  • In conclusion, we can try and ignore his contribution to large consortia papers where it is hard to judge if he only made minor contributions or had a major role (unlikely given his position in the paper, I have been on such papers myself). If you do that, then from JoelleJay's analysis we have "His highest-cited first-author paper has 38 citations, and his highest-cited last-author paper has 15 citations" which would put him clearly in the non-notable side of the bar and would follow from an analysis based on your points (2), (3) and (6). So overall, this looks like a pretty average (or somewhat below-average) scientist that recently had a single high-profile paper whose long-term impact in the field has not yet been fully established. Does that sound about right? So the argument against is that he fails WP:NPROF, the argument in favor is that we recently kept similarly weak cases. --hroest 03:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Philepitta -- I largely agree with your and hroest's points. I recognize the bias in analyzing coauthors, particularly those involved in large consortia, which is why I looked at ~50 coauthors of his most recent non-consortium papers (addresses (1) and (2) to skew towards people he works with as senior author; if he's personally sought out for high-profile collaborations the metrics should be higher) as well the ~100 collaborators he's published 24 or more papers with (removes the bias you note in (5)). For (1), I do want to reiterate the fact that he has about two dozen coauthors (just among his most frequent collaborators) with h-indices above 10 (multiple above 20) who are clinical genetic counselors (h-index of 24, no Duke profile I could find), "research coordinators II" (with just a bachelor's this person has achieved an h-index of 13), or nurse practitioners (h-index of 23). This strongly suggests the field itself (or at least the Undiagnosed Disease Network) is saturated with high citations rather than high-impact research professors specifically seeking to publish with him. JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After thinking about this a lot, I'm convinced by Philepitta's arguments. I also think from a risk assessment perspective, there's much more of a down side to deleting this bio than not deleting it. Guettarda (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guettarda just curious, what is the risk here in your "risk assessment"? --hroest 17:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that he's Black means that, rightly or wrongly, people will perceive this as yet another instance where women and non-white people are subject to greater scrutiny. That perception would exists even if Hanchard there was little chance of Hanchard meeting our notability requirements. And if this whole discussion makes me feel uncomfortable as an experienced Wikipedia who knows how harsh AFDs can feel, it's a given that this discussion will be seen as "proof" of Wikipedia's anti-Black bias by our many observers. Guettarda (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even more so when there's decent evidence that women and Black men are cited less often by white men than white men are cited by white men, suggesting that there's systemic bias in citation numbers. Guettarda (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure that is true, but I feel a little uneasy about a US-based researcher being singled out for credit in a multi-author paper that is supposed to be boosting Africa-based researchers. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While Philepitta over eggs the pudding Hanchard meets WP:NACADEMIC on citation grounds, and lead author on a Nature cover story is significant. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan A Jones What are you basing the citation grounds on? Within his field he is below average across the board compared to other researchers (not even just professors). JoelleJay (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I went through the 147 coauthors I analyzed earlier and filtered out the genetic counselors, clinical research coordinators, techs, nurse coordinators, and instructors to get 78 people with professorships or senior research positions (the people he should be compared to for the average professor test). Here are the citation metrics now:
Total citations: avg: 10049, med: 4961, H: 1880.
Total papers: avg: 162, med: 115, H: 94.
h-index: avg: 40, med: 32, H: 26.
Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 1049, med: 541, H: 192. 2nd: avg: 575, med: 301, H: 157. 3rd: avg: 457, med: 252, H: 92. 4th: avg: 382, med: 201, H: 69. 5th: avg: 334, med: 170, H: 67. JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4 Do AFDs still last 7 days? I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to withdraw it when I nominated it to make clear if the article is notable or not for its DYK nomination. SL93 (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this is passed 7. I was merely pointing out that it's clear this article meets GNG and NPROF criteria 1, and that there is a clear policy based consensus to keep. You can feel free to let the conversation continue, and have an admin close it, but frankly there is no chance that this article will be deleted and its just a formality at this point. A withdrawal saves having to wait for an admin to close up the AFD, and lessens the burden on admins.4meter4 (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4 The burden would have to be on someone, admin or non-admin, because I don't know how to close the discussion. I'm fine with the formality too and I feel that it might be needed for the reason I nominated it for. We will just have to agree to disagree. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the rules changed, I can't withdraw it anyway when there is one outstanding delete vote. SL93 (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly fine. I could have closed it out on a withdrawal, but you are well within policy to wait for an admin to make a ruling. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4 But does he clearly stand out as far above the average professor in his subfield? If based on citations, do you at least recognize the degree this metric is inflated in medical genetics? A discipline where a tech with a bachelor's and no institutional profile can get an h-index of 15 in 5 years certainly cannot be evaluated with the same benchmarks we use for other professions (unless we want to create 1000+ articles on genetic counselors...) JoelleJay (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Stein[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Diane Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, NAUTHOR Noah 💬 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Noah 💬 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Fortean Zoology[edit]

Centre for Fortean Zoology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Centre for Fortean Zoology is not a notable organization. It is run from Jonathan Downes backyard. Downes wrote this Wikipedia article himself as pure promotion and nearly all the sources on the article are primary sources from Downes himself. The article has struggled with reliable referencing for years. It's basically a promotion piece and lacks reliable in depth coverage from secondary sources. Jonathan Downes' article was recently deleted and I nominate that this article should be as well. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per noms reasoning. Heiro 22:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom's reasoning.
  • Delete : Fails reliable sources. Sharath Abhivadyah Talk Page 14:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I won't mince words: this organization peddles pseudoscientific nonsense, and I would prefer it not be given a platform. However, this organization's expertise in baseless hooey has been cited a surprisingly massive number of times by reliable sources. For example, BBC News ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), The Guardian ([1], [2 (authored by the organization's director)], [3], [4]), ABC News (Australia) ([1], [2], [3]), Swissinfo ([1]), IGN ([1 (after the organization partnered with Capcom of all things], [2]), The Times ([1], [2]), The Daily Telegraph ([1], [2], [3], [4]), CBC News [1], the National Post ([1]), Al.com ([1]), The Independent ([1]).
    Essentially, while I hate that this organization is notable, they are clearly notable. If anything, I believe based on performing WP:BEFORE for this organization the article Jonathan Downes was wrongfully deleted. At the very least, however, as this discussion is currently heavily leaning Delete, this should be a redirect to the article 'Cryptozoology', as the article's 11,000+ page views over the last two years and the amount of reliable sources that cite them indicate this is a plausible search term.
    Furthermore, the nominator's claim that "Downes authored this article himself" is misleading at best: Downes created the article back in 2005, but this was his only contribution, and critically, literally no aspect about our current article is the same. This is akin to saying that an IP editor wrote our article on Barack Obama. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through these, I note that nearly every one of these simply just briefly refers to Downes as the leader of the Centre and otherwise presents Downes and the group as experts rather than pseudoscience proponents. Of course, in reality, this is a fringe group (WP:Fringe, WP:Pseudoscience) that needs reliable and notable secondary coverage that describes them accurately. So far each one of these sources are simply promoting the organization (and so we have to keep WP:PROFRINGE in mind). Some of these items are blatantly promoting the organization, like this 2008 BBC report that links readers out to the Centre's site without comment. (Media uncritically parroting pseudoscientific claims from cryptozoology circles is nothing new—we even have a little section on it over at our cryptozoology article).)
Do you have any sources from academics or other reliable sources discussing the group's history and/or pseudoscientific and/or fringe context? The organization is by no means a reliable source about itself. The above sources, troublingly, simply parrot the group's presentation of itself as a group of experts. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BBC News are not reliable for paranormal claims nor are the Telegraph or other news outlets. They write sensationalist articles without critical coverage, they are not neutral or reliable sources. People are attracted to the unknown and they play on that. There seems to be no academic sources that mention this organization. I can assure you Downes did write this article himself I was not wrong about that. Downes was fooling around on sock-puppets for years. The mass content on the article was written by Lazarusx who has admitted on the talk-page to being Downes [3] "I am indeed Jon Downes". So Downes had two accounts Jondownes and Lazarusx. Downes had another sock BillPetrovic. Richard Freeman has also had about 4 Wikipedia accounts Doctor3uk, Tallowghast etc. It is all promotional editing that happened years ago and conflict of interest. It's quite clear to me the article should be flushed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are clearly multiple independent sources. We dont delete articles about organisations just because they peddle nonsense. Rathfelder (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got a reliable source discussing the history and sturcture of this fringe organization rather than the various blurbs promoting it above, I think we'd all like to see it. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, especially the bit about about lacking in depth coverage from reliable sources. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Passing, uncritical mentions aren't the same thing as in-depth coverage. Quoting somebody affiliated with the Centre isn't reporting on the history, organization and activities of the Centre; being the source for the token "the Yeti could still be out there" sound bite fails to meet WP:NORG. Add that to the COI/sockpuppet concerns, and it's pretty plain that we're better off without this article. XOR'easter (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the various mentions listed above are just that, mentions: mentions of the centre and their bizarre cryptid-related claims. I see no in-depth coverage of the organisation itself, which would lend itself to an encyclopedia article. Even putting WP:FRINGE aside, there's very little here to show notability, and I think our standards should be even higher for organisations that push pseudoscientific woo. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Fleetwood[edit]

Seth Fleetwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mayor of a small city with very little coverage outside of the immediate area, even in the larger newspapers of the same state. Only other notable position is county council, which isn't enough for WP:NPOL. SounderBruce 22:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 22:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 22:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Haven't dug in to make a determination but I note that Bellingham is not so small with a population of 92,000. We generally presume notability for mayors of cities with populations over 100,000. Cbl62 (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mayor of the northernmost city with a population of more than 50,000 people in the contiguous United States is notable. KidAd • SPEAK 22:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I don't agree that the northernmost city with pop over 50k is enough to be notable, however- that, combined with the town not being that far under the 100k mark makes me pause. Technically I don't think he qualifies- but its close. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It does not appear his legal career would qualify him nor would his mayoral service.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bellingham WA is not a large or significant enough city to extend its mayors an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of a properly demonstrated pass of WP:NPOL #2, cities don't get special exemptions from NPOL just because their population cracks 50K or because of their geographical locations per se, and this relies mainly on primary sources rather than any significant volume of reliable source coverage for the purposes of getting him past NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The cited references do not go in-depth enough to qualify per WP:POLITICIAN. --Greysonsarch (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I read the consensus is that mayors of cities of moderate size are not automatically notable, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. There's no standard policy for lawyers, but he would fail my own standards. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater 21:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization (Christian perspective)[edit]

Globalization (Christian perspective) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a place to publish one's own analyses and theories. This article has 0 references and reads like someone's personal essay. pinktoebeans (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move, can be made better. Would assume the "Further reading" covers sources, so issue is "not inline" instead of nonexistent. Improve by moving to Globalization (Christianity) or perhaps Globalization (religion) and mix in Islam. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article itself does not seem to cite any sources for its statements, nor does it refer to any major religious leaders. The subject itself seems highly, well, subjective. It might make sense to have some mention, in the articles on Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church, or other major Christian religious organizations, if those organizations have any specific statements or positions related to "globalization", but even then it's such a vague term. Christianity is a major world religion with, what, 2 billion followers and multiple large mutually-exclusive denominations. I cannot see how one could write an article on this subject, there are simply too many potential perspectives. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hyperion35: Just noticed, you're right after me alphabetically. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unsourced, WP:NOR and WP:NOTFORUM. Aasim (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is NOT unsourced, but the references are not in-line references. Instead they appear as "further reading": various books on the subject. This is certainly far from an ideal article, as different viewpoints will be possible within each of the denominational groups. However the lack of formal citations and lack of references to specific religious leaders is no reason to delete. Instead it is a case for tagging for improvement. No strong view as to whether to rename. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. This is an essay on a contentious religious topic. The references, such as they are, do not refer to anything specific in the article—and I have a very hard time seeing how the statements made in the body could be clearly supported by independent, secondary sources. Topic may well be notable, but best to start over on this one. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a WP:POVFORK. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (TNT) – Agreed with AleatoryPonderings. The article is just a short college essay (cough MLA citations cough) haphazardly transplanted into a Wikipedia article. However, while I agree with them that it would be best to start over, I believe it would be best to start over with an article that attempts to include more religions than just Christianity, as I imagine it would make for a more comprehensive article. For example: "Perspectives of [major] religions on globalization", "Religious perspectives on globalization", or "Globalization (religious perspective)". Making it not inherently essay-like could be a challenge, but I think it could be done. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG as per all. Grailcombs (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Davis (English cricketer)[edit]

Simon Davis (English cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Suffolk County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Steel[edit]

Simon Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Dean (cricketer)[edit]

Alan Dean (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but I couldn't find any coverage. Sources may exists offline or locally about his minor counties career. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Another that should have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence the article meets GNG. Redirection could be option, although not sure that is warranted, could encourage re-creation? Eldumpo (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to meeting GNG. GNG is the minimum for anything to be included in Wikipedia as a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG.--MadD (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Banks (cricketer)[edit]

Benjamin Banks (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Sources may exist offline or locally on his minor counties career though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Another that should have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to meeting GNG. GNG is the minimum inclusion criteria for any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Williams (cricketer)[edit]

Christopher Williams (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is yet another in a very long line of unhelpful Lambert contributions and should be given very little weight. Deus et lex (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winpak[edit]

Winpak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company - one of the refs is considered a scam site, another is dead and the final is an award. Nothing much comes up for a news search beside some trivial mentions Remagoxer (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources provided by Fram show gng where the tournament is discussed in a wider sense beyond routine match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trofeo Ciudad de Sevilla[edit]

Trofeo Ciudad de Sevilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Dr Salvus 20:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 20:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 22:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an important "friendly" tournament apparently fondly and widely remembered in Spain, for the general atmosphere and for the intense rivalry between the two Sevillean teams (Sevilla and Betis) which seems to be more fierce perhaps than that between Real and Atletico. If one sees that a tournament last held in 1995 is either the focus of or mentioned in more than 20 Spanish sources since 2009[4], including a few this year alone, then this is not some obscure trophy (note: some of these are about a skating trophy, but most are about the football one). This from last month is an article solely about the trophy, this is more like a column, but again completely about the trophy; this is a complete 2019 article from elDiario.es, about why the Trofeo disappeared. Contemporary articles must be more common, but are harder to find. Still, something like this complete article from El País shows that this garnered widespread attention during its heyday. Fram (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to be a tournament of historical significance; coverage provided by Fram satisfies WP:GNG, multiple sources addressing the tournament in depth and indicating importance Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not all friendly tournaments are notable, but this clearly passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Fram passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Kiev International Tournament[edit]

1989 Kiev International Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Dr Salvus 20:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 20:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 22:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is only a friendly tournament and the presence of one (reliable) source listing the results does not mean it is notable. Eldumpo (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: summer association football friendly tournaments do not meet notability as advised in WP:FPL --Whiteguru (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copa Independencia de Bolivia[edit]

Copa Independencia de Bolivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Dr Salvus 20:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 20:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Following the astute reasoning of DGG. Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Nesenoff[edit]

David Nesenoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Spam target. scope_creepTalk 19:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article looks notable to me. I do dare someone to go after Hendrik Sumendap and Raymond Cottrell these two men aren't notable, and never will be. Catfurball (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes him notable? scope_creepTalk 22:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What makes him notable is the significant coverage he has received in independent, reliable sources. This New York Times article and also this Los Angeles Times article are the first two references I checked. He is clearly notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::::That is a clear pattern. Close it. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creepTalk 09:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC) scope_creepTalk 17:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Minor filmaker, whose notability is ONEEVENT, related to Helen Thomas. Refs1-3 and 20 through 35 refer only to the encounter with Thomas. Refs 15-19 aretrvial coverage or non-third party sources. The only sources worth serious consideration is 14.LATimes and possibly 13 NYT. Refs 8,11 & 12 are the local edition of theNYT, an no more significant than any other local paper.If kept,. the material other than the filmmaking should be deleted or shortened, with a link to the article on Thomas. With respect to her, its a noteworthy even (though the article is overdetailed and citebombed), but not with respect to him. Some of the comments above are "other stuff exists". And, most of all, I cannot figure out the nefarious motivation in the "pattern". DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a clear case of one event notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BLP1E applies. Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 05:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep, for the reasons given to keep this. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Air Duct Cleaners Association[edit]

National Air Duct Cleaners Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Note one US Gov't source has been removed where the org is mentioned but not in any depth [5]; the source was used to substantiate a fraudulent claim that the USG preferred this org's members over others. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no meaningful sources here about the organization that would demonstrate notability, nor could I find anything else in a Google search to support a claim. Alansohn (talk)
  • Delete not enough news coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Black Cats (band). Eddie891 Talk Work 23:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hazhar Saleh[edit]

Hazhar Saleh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP has been vigorously defended by its creator who has been removing tags and objecting to a redirect. After weeks of this the sourcing consists almost entirely of performance clips on YouTube. There’s an interview and the first reference appears to be valid, but there certainly isn’t enough here to support a BLP. I’d be happy with a redirect to his band as an outcome, otherwise there is no basis for keeping this. Mccapra (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a deletion notice, so if you really do feel that the article is worth keeping, you should comment at the deletion discussion as to why you feel the article should be kept— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk • contribs)

  • Keep This article has solid references and has been edited many times by different Users and admins. I don't understand why this admin (Mccapra) is trying to delete the article while the artist is noticeable and famous! We are his fans, and we want to keep his page on Wikipedia. So please, instead of deleting the article, help us improve it and make it better. We are two young writers and of course we need your help to get better. But there is one thing that I really don't understand and that is when I'm explaining to you he is in Persian music market and if you do a quick research on Iran you'll learn there is no copyright law in Iran and that's the reason why the songs are not licensed! I'm very sure you know that and you are still searching on American music sources?! How does that work? Can you find any English songs in Iranian or middle eastern music sources? Please do a quick search on google then you'll see the most reliable source in Persian music market is Radio Javan.

Please have some respect for our artists.

Thank you. Brave.soul92 (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC) (the above contribution copied from the talk page on behalf of an inexperienced editor) Mccapra (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC) — Brave.soul92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep The artist has been mentioned in native language news sources and TVs, which means he is notable, and he's been in the Kurdish music market ten years before he joined the black cats, that's why I think it's better to keep his article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.109.61.80 (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC) — 109.109.61.80 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep As you can see, Hazhar Saleh is a Persian singer, and unfortunately, there is no copyright law in Iran. That’s why the most reliable source on the Persian music market is Radio Javan. Please do research, and you’ll see it’s true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk • contribs) 11:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC) duplicate vote struck. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have found these 2 small articles at dailymusicroll and one interview at thriveglobal, both of which are on Wikipedia black list. Looking at all the refbombing in the article it's still a WP:GNG fail. There is no significant coverage, there are no reliable references. What concerns me is that all the major contributors that are voting here to keep the article, could not provide enough reliable sources - in Kurdish or any other language. Moreover I believe the last voter has COI as his 8 edits since the registration revolve around the subject and his band. Also the name Haz kurdson is quite declarative on its own. Less Unless (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As an old Wikipedia user, I do not understand why people want to delete this article.

Evidence is evident. And quite valid On the other hand, slander is definitely not part of Wikipedia's policy. Users who call goodwill fake should be careful what they say. In any case, the article has the conditions to remain and in my opinion it is fully qualified Struck off duplicate vote by Aliasghar ghorbandokht Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 06:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep He has many interviews on TV shows, and many times we've watched him on many Kurdish and Persian TV. He is a member of the black cats band, which is the oldest Persian music band. Let's keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsan.S.M (talk • contribs) 22:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC) — Ehsan.S.M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I feel so sorry for you genius Less Unless! First of all, I've already mentioned in my comment that I'm Kurdish and yes my name is also Hazhar, the question is how can you be so short-minded to think there is only one Hazhar in the whole Kurdistan! I think a person who thinks this way can't make any difference in the world. with all due respect. Haz kurdson (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Struck off duplicate vote Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 06:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep I know this artist, he is Black cats lead singer and has been really successful. I think it’s better to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryamehrad (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC) — Aryamehrad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment can those !voting ‘keep’ please share here three reliable independent sources that discuss the subject in depth? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you will receive any bona fide replies... they seem to be recruited from somewhere. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 06:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete no notability yet. But wow, what an energy for the article. Impressive.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No notability, basically everything that Less Unless said. QueerFilmNerdtalk 06:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet GNG. YouTube sources can, in some cases, be used to establish uncontroversial facts or to quote the subject, but they do not themselves establish notability. There appears to be no sustained and focused coverage of Saleh in any reliable source. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 06:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources do not demonstrate how the artist qualifies for an article nor is any obvious notability asserted. While Commons is separate, the picture is up for deletion there, which is usually a symptom of problems here. Fiddle Faddle 08:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to band on the simple basis that the band member has insifficient individual notabiity, so a redirect to the band is the correct thing to do per WP:BANDMEMBER. My apologies for not realising that before, and my thanks to doomsdayer520 for pointing it out. However, the redirection must be enforced. In view of the number of folk thinking this is a ballot may I suggest that the redirect be salted please? Fiddle Faddle 21:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other editors' remarks. QuietHere (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*keep very famous he show in BBC TV and Avang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC) striking duplicate vote Mccapra (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Black Cats (band) and Protect against reversion. See WP:BANDMEMBER: redirecting band members to the band is standard procedure if they have not achieved notability outside that band, and this singer has not. In fact, almost all of his activity is with the band except for some solo releases that nobody seems to have noticed. Meanwhile, the "keep" votes above are glaringly obvious puppetry, and the "delete" votes seem to be punishment in reaction to the puppetry. Redirecting is a typical solution, but make it stick if such moves have been reverted before. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see only 1 ref. Shadow4dark (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*keep I think it would be better to help modify and add the source instead of deleting the article I believe that giving the article a chance can be a good solution.

And also very reliable sources have been added recently. Please remove Tag Thanks Admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

striking third attempted !vote by the same editor. Mccapra (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Venice[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Welcome to Venice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfD in 2010 indicated that the content should be merged with another article and this was recreated 2011-09-08T05:19:14. Redirect Delete and salt as the album is not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd June Azral Lalah[edit]

Mohd June Azral Lalah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Badly sourced stub on a footballer that has never played in a league listed at WP:FPL; Sabah, Beverly and DYS were all playing outside the Super League when this footballer was playing for them; therefore, there is no claim to passing WP:NFOOTBALL. The article's one source is only a passing mention. Google searches and a Malaysian search do not come back with any relevant hits in WP:RS, therefore the subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG and should be considered for deletion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se#Soundtrack. There is consensus that the subject is not notable. The suggested redirect is a viable alternative to deletion as the target is a soundtrack listing the song. (non-admin closure) — MarkH21talk 13:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se (Song)[edit]

Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se (Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not going to A7 this because it was in a movie, possible hoax because this is listed as a Justin Bieber single, and the cover art is just an actress's face, either way, fails NSONG. Noah 💬 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Noah 💬 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Noah 💬 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khairul Azahar Eidros[edit]

Khairul Azahar Eidros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This footballer has played 12 mins of professional football, which is a weak passing of WP:NFOOTBALL. Most of his career was played at regional level and he only had one season with a professional-level club.

A Malaysian search comes back with the usual bare minimum statistical database coverage and passing mentions like this Bharian article. There is a clear consensus within the Wikipedia community that WP:GNG takes priority in such cases and there is no clear evidence that Khairul passes GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage about the subject, hence fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Ziade[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Georges Ziade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Note that it is a different person to the previous AFD however. The article creator has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Was unable to find suitable coverage to establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPROF. --hroest 17:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Scopus says he has an h-index of 5 and 77 total citations. Unless there's GNG somewhere he is far from notable. JoelleJay (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurukkoli Moideen[edit]

Kurukkoli Moideen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A politician who is only a candidate in the upcoming Kerala election. Basically fails NPOL as the subject has been never elected into any legislative bodies in the past. There is also no significant coverage. Hence fails GNG also. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. The subject is not notable according to GNG. Iflaq (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won, and this article does not suggest that he would pass any other notability criterion independently of having to pass NPOL. No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is clear he has been elected to a lot of local service organisations and sanghas in Kerala. However, he has not been elected to any state or national body, so fails WP:NPOL --Whiteguru (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete candidates for office who have not been elected are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete He is Indian politician of Indian Union Muslim League

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/iuml-releases-list-of-candidates/article34053385.ece

He currently Editor-in-Chief 'Swathanthra Karshakan' Magazine https://find.uoc.ac.in/Record/ch.6734He currently serves as president of Swathanthra Karshaka Sangham Kerala State He is the selected UDF candidate to contest for the Member of Legislative Assembly seat from Tirur constituency 

https://thehinduimages.com/details-page.php?id=144433764&highlights=SWATHANTHRA%2520KARSHAKA%2520SANGHAM

Don't delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3917:607D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a candidate to contest an MLA seat is not a reason why a person gets a Wikipedia article — politicians get articles on here when they win election to, and thereby actually hold, a notable political office, not just because they ran as a candidate. Being a magazine editor is not a reason why a person gets a Wikipedia article — magazine editors get articles when they've been the subject of critical analysis about the significance of their work as magazine editors, not just because you show a photograph of them doing their job. And new comments in AFD discussions go at the bottom of the page, not the top. Bearcat (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Midas Interactive Entertainment[edit]

Midas Interactive Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero sourcing found, only 100 results for the name on Google. Parent company is a redlink. Most of the video games listed are not notable or only have stub articles, suggesting a possible WP:WALLED Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looking around, the company is only ever mentioned in connection with one or another game it published (mostly in old mags from the Internet Archive). This is the only reliable source I found that gives a bit more than two words on the topic, but even here it is discussed in WP:PASSING by what is already a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL article. Whether all of the games it published are unnotable, I cannot say yet, but given that Midas mostly deals/dealt with budget games, this can probably be assumed. IceWelder [✉] 18:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, Despite not being named like one, this is basically a list. As a list, I think it just scrapes by the (somewhat ill-defined) list notability guidelines: It's a meaningful and useful category with at least some notable members whose membership can be reliably sourced. ApLundell (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zero sourcing found" is just as much as a problem for list articles as it is any other article, so I'm not quite sure I follow your rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's not *literally* zero sources available. The published games themselves constitute first-party sources that would justify inclusion in a list or category. (I realize that without third-party sources discussing the importance of the category overall, this argument depends on the vagueness of the LISTN guidelines, so I certainly don't insist on it. It's just how I would look at it, if it were up to me.) ApLundell (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that the GNG would still apply here regardless. Your comment seemed to suggest otherwise. It also seemed to suggest WP:USEFUL was a reason to keep an article too. I'm just letting you know neither are. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me like there's far from a clear consensus that USEFUL applies to lists. The list notability guidelines say "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", and that matches my observations about how deletion discussions about lists go. That is the context for my original comment that this might scrape through the LISTN guidelines since they're pretty wide open to interpretation. ApLundell (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit of a reach, especially considering it's not actually even a list article, in title or structure. Nor do I think that's a plausible conversion, as it's rare to have a "List of games published by X" article when "X" doesn't have their own separate company article. We're moving into dangerous territory where we allow the scenario of "Well the subject doesn't meet the GNG but there's a useful list in the middle of the article so let's keep it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Could not find the sourcing to satisfy the WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Sergecross' comments. Namcokid47 18:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of all the things I can find on Google on this company, most are online retailers or databases, with the only other ones being their official website and a user-contributed wiki about Dingo Pictures, so it fails WP:GNG. Dominicmgm (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per reasons cited above. Northern Escapee (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There appears to be a near-complete lack of third-party sources, and it seems to lack notoriety. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There simply aren't reliable sources to support this, as others have pointed out, so it's got to go! DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Najeeb Kanthapuram[edit]

Najeeb Kanthapuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A politician who fails NPOL as he has been never elected into any legislative bodies. Also does not have any sigcov thus failing GNG also Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won, and this article does not suggest that he would pass any other notability criterion independently of having to pass NPOL. No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL and does not have enough coverage outside of his campaign to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be renamed if desired. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gillman[edit]

Peter Gillman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG not finding any in-depth coverage of him. Theroadislong (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a review of the film based on one of his books. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a review by Publisher's Weekly of his biography of David Bowie. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging DGG, who removed the PROD for this article back in 2011 and seems to already be familiar with this matter. Personally, I vote Weak keep, as the subject seems to be just notable enough under WP:AUTHOR. To add marginally to what Cullen328 noted, Gillman's work on Bowie has been cited by The Times and The Telegraph as well. Comment for those performing WP:BEFORE: this Peter Gillman not to be confused with Peter Gilman (single 'l'), who was also an author. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as cleanup of the article itself goes, I think the only major cleanup this article needs is to be made less reliant on primary sources as opposed to a typical WP:TNT situation with undisclosed autobiographies. Furthermore, the subject seems to be WP:HERE. It's true that they have been prompted at least twice – once on their talk page and once on the Teahouse – to add a COI disclosure to their page, and they really need to read and abide by Wikipedia:Verifiability, but their editing history to me is unmistakably one of wanting to contribute what they know to the project, not of using it as a means of promotion. Therefore, I believe with proper guidance, they could chip in as well. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a question for more experienced editors: would it be reasonable to move this article to Peter and Leni Gillman? Based on the sources Cullen and I are using, Leni seems almost precisely as notable as Peter and for the exact same reasons, and it feels like creating a separate article for Leni would be a borderline WP:REDUNDANTFORK given what sources we have about them. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is certainly a possibility, TheTechnician27, since his wife has been his co-author for many years. But my subjective opinion is that his most important book was "Eiger Direct: The Epic Battle on the North Face" which he co-authored with famed mountaineer Dougal Haston in 1966. That book has been issued with title variations in different countries. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has written significant books, and that's wenough to meet WP:AUTHOR. There does not seem to be any promotionalism in hte present version of the article. I think it would beenough to have a redirect for Leni, using the same argument as Cullen328-- she is not acoauthoro f his most important book. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Kuligowski[edit]

Eddie Kuligowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable fotographer, meeting GNG. 1, 2, 3. Described as “was one of the most astonishing photographers of the 70s and 80s. He had been one of the four photographers with Bernard Descamps, Bernard Plossu and Bruno Requillart to be exhibited by Jean-Claude Lemagny at the Bibliotheque Nationale in 1975. The following year, he won the Niepce Prize.” SportsOlympic (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Eddie Kuligowski was a well-known mid-century photographer. The French Wikipedia says he’s in these four collections (which would be an easy WP:NARTIST pass): Bibliothèque nationale de France; Musée Nicéphore-Niépce; Musée Réattu; Musée Cantini. I found that he has numerous photos in the collection of the Biblioteque Nationale de France: [6] But the three museums either don’t have a searchable database for their collections or couldn’t be verified. However, I did find that his work is in the Centre Pompidou:[7] There are at least three monographs on his work. All of the above combined with the Prix Niépce, I’d have to say he’s notable. There are a lot of hits on Google Books, for example Claude Nori’s 1979 book, “French Photography, from Its Origins to the Present”; a few things on Newspapers.com; and a journal article in the March 1978 edition of French Review on JSTOR stating that he was one of a small group of photographers who represented France as a cultural ambassador to the U.S. So also meets WP:GNG The article should be retained and improved but not deleted from the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC) - All five collections (4 of which are museum collections) now have citations. Netherzone (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets WP:NARTIST.--- Possibly (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:NARTIST with collections in Bibliothèque nationale de France; Musée Nicéphore-Niépce; Musée Réattu; Musée Cantini. Ut sic, Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Max Hechtman[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Max Hechtman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILMMAKER. The article was deleted in the past, but re-created. Really, there is not enough for a BLP for this filmmaker, one nomination for his short, some student work, that short, that is even by itself not that notable. Kolma8 (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the article was recreated by HM2021, who was essentially a sole editor of the article in question. The same user also is heavily extending Max's associated articles, such as Abigail_(2019_short_film), which by itself probably needs to be evaluated on meeting WP:NFILM. Thanks Kolma8 (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Since the prior AfD still doesn't meet WP:NFILMMAKER. All the issues from the prior AfD still apply, and nothing they have done since 2017 contributes to notability. Onel5969 TT me 03:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Dratify Until filmmaker reaches notability, dratify it so we don't lose the information and sources presented in the article.HM2021 7:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jared L. Valanzola[edit]

Jared L. Valanzola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a county councillor and local radio host, not adequately referenced as passing our notability standards for politicians or broadcasters. As always, neither serving on a county council nor hosting a local radio program in a single media market are "automatic" notability freebies that guarantee the right to an article in and of themselves, but the article is not referenced well enough to make him notable for those things -- two of the four footnotes here are primary sources (his staff profiles on the self-published websites of the county council and the radio station) that are not support for notability at all, while the two that come from media just namecheck his existence within coverage of the county council election as a whole, and thus aren't evidence that he's somehow more notable than all the other county councillors and/or candidates whose names also appear in those two articles. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than just technical verification that he exists as a person who has jobs. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For starters, Valanzola is a county commissioner, not a county councilor. This is not the same job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverArmour (talk • contribs) 15:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The job title that a county government uses for its members makes absolutely zero difference to our notability criteria for politicians, because regardless of whether the county government is called a "council" or a "commission", it's still a county government, which is still a local office where people do not get an automatic presumption of notability just for holding it. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In some places the county commission has both legislative and executive power, so yes they are not the same. But this is Massachusetts, where very little power at all is in the county, so having legislative and executive power at that level still amounts to next to nothing. In the US terms county council, county commissioner, county judge, and county legilstor are all used. County Judges are almost all executives, but there are often multiple ones, in Utah County, Utah with roughly 300,000 people, maybe more, they have 3 county comissioners, so this is clearly an executive and legislative function, it is like how Bull Connor was one of the city comissioners in Birmingham, Alabama, he was part of a three member executive authority. However in Macomb County, Michigan before we got a county executive we had I think an 18 member county commission, for reasons I understand even less we made it smaller when we got county executive. However the county commission in Macomb County had less than full executive power, since the sheriff (over police operations on the county level and the jail system), the prosecutor (Michigan has county prosecutors instead of state district attorneys, which means the counties are the local level of crime enforcement for prosecution, the Wayne County Prosecutor, Kym Worthy is without question notable, some states divide prosecutorial districts in ways that ignore county lines, thus lessening county power), the clerk and the tresurerer, and I think even the assessor are all directly elected. I really thought the new charter should have made less of these postions directly elected and if anything increased the number of comissioners. I think Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties should rename their comissioners councilors. In Utah, Salt Lake County, which has a county mayor, also has a county council, so if you compare that to neighboring Utah county you see they are using the words with their historic meanings, in Macomb County the county seat, Mount Clemens, Michigan, is run by a commission, Warren, Michigan has a mayor/council set up, while Sterling Heights and Eastpointe have a council/city manager set up, although in Sterling Heights the mayor is directly elected to that position, but he is just the chair of the city council with any extra function fully ceremonial. The fact the other 6 members of the council are elected at large, while the mayor is elected in a one person election and the mayorial term and the council terms are the same length means that at times mayors run unopposed, because it is easier to get elected if you run for the council.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our consensus has long been that county politicians are not presumed to be notable, and a Google news search brings up nothing except election results. Plymouth isn't even a particularly large county. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails all the relevant notability criteria, and that's even before taking into consideration that county office is not deemed presumptively notable, that even with that county government in New England is quite weak compared to the rest of the US, and that county government in Massachusetts in particular is vestigial: in most of the state the counties have been abolished as anything other than geographical references. Plymouth County's one of about three exceptions, and even there the county commissioners don't do much more than oversee the county lockup. Whoop-de-doo. Ravenswing 22:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per pburka.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: County councillors or commissioners (i.e., local government) do not inherit notability from WP:POLITICIAN --Whiteguru (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no where in the US are county commissioners default notable, in Massachusetts they are pretty much default not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbagetown Group Softball League[edit]

Cabbagetown Group Softball League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a neighbourhood amateur sports league, not referenced to any evidence of reliable source coverage about it for the purposes of establishing its notability under our inclusion standards for sports organizations. The only sources here are its own self-published website about itself and an archival fonds of its own internal organizational papers (reaggregated on two different websites, but the same fonds). But the existence of an archival fonds is not a notability criterion in and of itself -- for the purposes of a Wikipedia article, the notability test is a question of the extent to which the organization has or hasn't been the subject of journalistic coverage in media, of which none has been shown and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to show any. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence this meets GNG, and all of the sources ultimately seem to derive from the league. Eldumpo (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nominated. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and certainly not WP:NBASEBALL. PKT(alk) 20:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaghosham[edit]

Aaghosham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: On doing WP:Before in both Malayalam and English, I found nothing. May be its due to the age of this film. Sources may exist somewhere else in any format. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing to support an article on WP. Kolma8 (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn It appears that the article FC Dinamo Sukhum was redirected too FC Dinamo Sukhumi and more extensive history was there. (non-admin closure) Govvy (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FC Dinamo Sukhum[edit]

FC Dinamo Sukhum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an amateur team as far as I can see, I don't see enough for WP:FOOTYN. Sources are very weak. I also feel this AfD is testing the waters a bit as I don't really know football in Abkhazia, Georgia. But as far as I can see, Georgia has top four levels, and this team appears to play below that level and is regional. However there seems to be indication that football in Abkhazia region maybe being played independently of the main state of Georgia. Govvy (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, team with very limited coverage playing in regional league. GiantSnowman 15:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep Of all the Abkhazian teams you could have picked to AfD, this one is the most confusing since they could easily be confused with Dinamo Sukhumi, which is an Abkhazian team which plays in the Georgian league system. A "Dinamo Sukhumi" also played in the Soviet second division in 1991 and I cannot figure out if this team is new, related, or recreated to play in Abkhazia while the other team went off to play in Georgia. The Abkhazian system I believe is completely separate from the Georgian football system so they play in a quasi-top-flight league. Receives local coverage [8] (youth tournament, the first one I found - I don't think Sputnik is considered reliable, but I don't see why this would be unreliable) and have won local honours. I also searched for Naft Sukhum in Russian and found coverage of the league, so my assumption is that WP:GNG would be met, but this is not straightforward due to language and political difficulties. SportingFlyer T·C 15:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baháʼí Faith in Chad[edit]

Baháʼí Faith in Chad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entire article is based on Baha'i sources. There are only a very few secondary sources that mentions the subject in a trivial fashion. Fails WP:SIGCOV Serv181920 (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Graham Hassall, Moojan Momen, and Peter Smith are professional scholars who have published a number of materials in various professional journals as have others such as those cited. Statistics from demographic encyclopedias (Religious Intelligence, ARDA, Adherents.com) as well as the US State Department show notable population.Smkolins (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Compare with Christianity in Chad which is almost completely from a single source from the US State department and two demographic encyclopedias and Islam in Chad which depends on two US Federal sources, one academic and one semi-demographic encyclopedia.Smkolins (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fine, but this article is almost totally dependent on Baha'i sources only. Adherants.com and Religiousintelligence are both dead websites since years. Not sure how reliable they are? Google search, Google books, Google scholar have nothing on this subject.Serv181920 (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Fine" it is. The *notability* of an article is from such as the above. The *development* of the article is developed with such reliable sources as are available.Smkolins (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is absolutely a Baha'i article, supported with Baha'i sources that could be "reliable" for the Baha'is. No secondary sources, in any language have anything on this subject. WP:SIGCOV states : "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.... "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." And none of your sources are "Independent of the subject".Serv181920 (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not true:
* Religious Intelligence
* The Association of Religion Data Archives
* U.S. State Department (3 different times)
* Religion professional journal
* The Edmonton Journal newspaper
* Adherents.com
are independent sources. Period. Smkolins (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not important enough according to google search.Wasraw (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this subject can be evaluated based on a Google search in English. One of the main criticisms of Wikipedia is its consistent bias coming from young white anglophone male, technically-inclined editors. Chad is one of the least developed countries in the world, not an anglophone country, and lacks a system of universities and publishing that give notability to obscure topics like Mary Ellis grave and Bristol stool scale. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not sure why this was nominated. I have a copy of World Christian Encyclopedia (2001) and for Baha'is in Chad it estimates 80,000 in 2000 and says: "Rapid expansion to 50 local spiritual assemblies by 1973, with 3,500 active members and a school at Gassi. Thereafter, however, growth became explosive, rising by 1996 to 437 organized LSAs." Coverage from Baha'i scholars with academic credentials and independent publishers seems significant. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any country with a reasonably large representation of a worldwide religion should be susceptible to supporting an article on that religion in that country. This example does not seem at all out of bounds. If there are concerns about the quality or independence of sources, tag them for better sources being needed. BD2412 T 16:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV says : "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.... "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." And none of the sources used in the article are "Independent of the subject".Serv181920 (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not true:
* Religious Intelligence
* The Association of Religion Data Archives
* U.S. State Department (3 different times)
* Religion professional journal
* The Edmonton Journal newspaper
* Adherents.com
are independent sources. Period. Smkolins (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – All the independent sources have mentioned Baha'is in a trivial manner only. Smith and Momen do not mention Chad, and Hassall gives one sentence in a non-scholarly online source. World Christian Encyclopedia (WCE) says the number of Baha'is in Chad is 80,300 (2000) and 96,845 (2005). However, as noted at Baháʼí Faith by country, Margit Warburg, perhaps the foremost expert on Baha'is, writes that WCE's Baha'i numbers are unreliable and exaggerated. Religious Intelligence (2007) mentions that there are 80,335 Baha'is, though it doesn't appear to be a scholarly source. Given that WCE and Religious Intelligence are not reliable sources and they tend to be vastly higher than census figures of Baha'is reported by the UN Statistics Division (see Baháʼí Faith by country#Adherents by country), we should not assume there is a major Baha'i population in Chad without a better source. The US State Department says nothing except that there is a "small" Baha'i community. Then another non-academic source includes this: "Baha’i weekly prayer meetings in French are held on Saturday afternoons at the Baha’i Center, as are regular meetings." Adherents.com is dead and not peer-reviewed.

With all that said, perhaps the page should be kept but trimmed down, on the basis that it is a world religion represented in Chad. No opinion on the final decision. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - on the point of "Smith and Momen do not mention Chad" - the uses of the article are two:
  • "The community of Chad avoided being banned as part of a sweep across several Sub-Saharan countries."
Note that Niger *is* listed and is immediately to the west of Chad.
  • "The religion entered a new phase of activity when a message of the Universal House of Justice dated 20 October 1983 was released."
This is a scholarly source for a point which is then expanded upon in the following section about activities of the type.
As for "Hassall gives one sentence in a non-scholarly online source" I'm confused - he's used twice. There are two mentions of Chad in the same source. It's not just one sentence. See under
and
As for if this is a "non-scholarly" I think that's debatable. Looks scholarly to me - has sources for the summary he published.
Smkolins (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with pretty much everyone. Yes, only bahaï sources are cited and yes, in and of itself, the subject is notable. However, this looks to me like a case of WP:TNT. It is very unlikely at this stage that anyone will put in the effort to thoroughly clean the article and remove all the non-notable, non-NPOV, non-RS content. We better start over. JBchrch (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New sources are always to be considered to improve the article. There is no objection to Baha'i or non-Baha'i sources. Certainly none were ignored attempting to write the article using non-Baha'i and Baha'i sources that were properly published. I hope new sources are included. Please note some sources refer to the generality of Africa or sub-Saharan or Arab-African countries and were limited to brief mentions in those regards. Obviously "only baha'i sources" is incorrect. Everyone has agreed non-Baha'i sources are used. Let's find ways to improve the article and there's nothing wrong with using sources in responsible ways. As for WCE please note the scholarly review of their information from other sources which actually counter Wargit's pov in that they over-estimate Christians and thus under-report other groups as a general rule in the section immediately above the commentary about the Baha'is - by all means look up the papers. World_Christian_Encyclopedia#Reception Smkolins (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and to be explicit, "only bahaï sources are cited" is incorrect. A list of independent sources used in the article are listed above and expanded on below available for further work.Smkolins (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - further to independent sources:
  • "Graber, Geraldine Louise". The Province. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 24 Mar 2011. p. 86.
  • "Chadian Faith Leaders welcome Chargé Davis Ba". Africanews.com. Sep 12, 2019.
  • Gala M. Pierce (13 Jan 2002). "Aurora college student to talk about his adventure in Africa". Daily Herald (DuPage ed.). Arlington Heights, IL. p. 3. When Ian Blood of Aurora took a 10-month Baha'i youth service trip to the African nation of Chad last year, he missed luxuries such as electricity, air conditioning and running water. Blood contacted other Baha'is in Chad to see if he could be of use. He said there are thousands who practice the Baha'i faith in Chad. "It was the second private radio station (in Chad) to receive a license," Blood said. "Freedom of the press is really a new thing in Chad." Smkolins (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I disagree. Some are brief, more or less, but they are not trivial. Service of people in Chad and some projects of what they did and also of the indigenous Baha'is and what they did. Smkolins (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elisha Paul Janes[edit]

Elisha Paul Janes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It does not seem to pass GNG. I found some passing mentions in the press ([9]) but nothing that indicates enough notability. MarioGom (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Absolutely no evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Megtetg34 (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of the sourcing is unreliable in the extreme. Building a bunch of homes is not enough to justify having an encyclopedia article on someone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Diana (musical)#Live stage filming. Until there is more WP:GNG-compliant coverage about the film specifically, at least. Sandstein 12:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diana (2021 film)[edit]

Diana (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable production/filming so far. It is the case of WP:NYF. Fails WP:NFF. Kolma8 (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a load of hits for this musical, should this be moved to Diana (2021 musical) ? Govvy (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Diana (musical)#Live stage filming Just a filming of the existing stage show. Nate • (chatter) 14:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think redirect will make sense. Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rediect per Mrschimpf. This is not a film, it is a filming of an existing show, and is not independently notable of that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A good idea. Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dratify We may hear more news about it in the coming months regarding how it was produced and Netflix might submit it for awards consideration this fall like how Disney+ did it with Hamilton (Golden Globes/SAG).HM2021 7:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I guess it would be better to redirect it to Diana (musical)#Live stage filming at this point. It can then be reverted back to its current form once it has been released on Netflix and reviews and other appropriate sections can be added in due course. Keivan.fTalk 19:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Mango[edit]

Nuclear Mango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication of notability. lack of reliable references. fails WP:GNG Lastin4 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lastin4 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lastin4 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lastin4 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have blocked the nominator as a spam sockpuppet. However, I am leaving this nomination open for it to be assessed on its merits. MER-C 15:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Searches find some announcement coverage in 2009 ([10], [11]), which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. My searches, including Indian media specific, are not finding substantial coverage of either "Nuclear Mango" or "Split Image Pictures". The company website now redirects to a hairdresser, so it is unlikely that anything further will emerge in future. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston. Selectively. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Music Award nominations for Whitney Houston[edit]

American Music Award nominations for Whitney Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have already got List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston. There isn't any justification for this as a standalone article. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston. Selectively. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy Awards and nominations for Whitney Houston[edit]

Grammy Awards and nominations for Whitney Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whitney "only" won 6 Grammies. She is neither the most awarded nor the most nominated person in Grammy Award history. Even if she were, there's no rationale for this as a standalone article, when List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston is there. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Friedrich Mittrich[edit]

Wilhelm Friedrich Mittrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP which is a borderline attack page. The sources indicate the company and the scandal are likely notable, but not the individual. Mccapra (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This heise.de article is a lot more about the company than the person, and this article should be rapidly refactored or deleted. Writing everything in the shape of biographies is not right. Uncle G (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and not enough content about the individual. Moving to Optical Disc Service [de] might be an option if we want to talk about the company and scandal, but we don't have sources for a biography. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 12:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom Sharath Abhivadyah Talk Page 15:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald and Douglas[edit]

Donald and Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of the few remaning stand-alone articles about characters in this franchise. Prodded last year with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". Deprodded as "too iconic" for a PROD. Article has, of course, not improved at all since the PROD. Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination. The subject is clearly not notable, and the article is way below the quality requirements of Wikipedia. Laplorfill (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's plenty of coverage out there such as the Thomas and Friends Character Encyclopedia and the details of their engineering and Scottish heritage are reasonably well done. And, as always, it's interesting to find where and how the engines have been recreated with actual working examples. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:BEFORE did not reveal any sigcov, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grub Smith[edit]

Grub Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am finding articles by Grub Smith, but not really about him. I am seeing nothing that gives me a sense that this subject passes the WP:GNG. BD2412 T 05:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. The BLP doesn't meet Wp:GNG and the two sources that are given are not reliable sources. The article must be speedy deleted. Iflaq (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I agree, the meet Wp:GNG, and the sourcing is skimpy to nonexistent. Article reads more like a promotional blurb than anything encyclopedic.TH1980 (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable journalist lacking significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Arboretum, Charlotte[edit]

The Arboretum, Charlotte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This neighborhood is not officially recognized by the City of Charlotte or any other government. The shopping center at it's center is nothing more than an unusually large strip mall. I've not been able to find any source, probably because there are none to be found. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a real neighborhood, just a shopping center and things nearby. No indication of notability (lack of significant coverage in sources aside from mundane local news) or need to standalone; we have a whole article on the city. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not been able to find any in-depth documentation on this, either. Arcadia books are usually good for this sort of thing, at least as starting points, when a subject is a documented one, and I have used them to good effect with other articles. The facts that Rogers & Rogers 1996 has nothing at all, even though post-dating the subject, and nor does Ely, Drain & Rogers 2001, are quite telling. Contrast Byers 2004 being a good indicator that Plaza-Midwood is documented.
    • Rogers, John Reynolds; Rogers, Amy T. (1996). Charlotte, Its Historic Neighborhoods. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780752405155.
    • Ely, Vermelle Diamond; Drain, Grace Hoey; Rogers, Amy T. (2001). Charlotte, North Carolina. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738513751.
    • Byers, Jeff (2004). Plaza-Midwood Neighborhood of Charlotte. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738517018.
  • Uncle G (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hanka Paldum. Basically a "soft redirect". As no sources were presented, redirecting to artist as WP:ATD. If reliable sources are located, no prejudice against restoration to article status. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nek' je od srca[edit]

Nek' je od srca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could find no evidence of notability, either under WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. The most I could find was this trivial mention in one book. WP:BEFORE was performed with the Croatian and English names, with and without the name of the artist. Were this an English album, I would've simply PRODed. However, as I don't speak Croatian, my WP:BEFORE in that language was very rudimentary, and so I'm using this as a check on myself to make sure I'm not somehow missing something and causing this to be unjustly deleted. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Haskvitz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alan Haskvitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Second nomination; the last one was a "no consensus" in 2014. Sounds like he had an interesting career, but I don't think this meets the notability hurdle as there is no significant, in-depth, independent coverage. Neutralitytalk 02:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep clearly notable given all the awards and a obituary in a (local) newspaper. --hroest 13:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The obituary looks like a paid obituary rather than a staff-written one. The awards don't establish significant in-depth coverage independent of the subject. Neutralitytalk 14:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered that but I think this is the paid one. I am also not claiming that the obituary by itself gives notability but based on the prior discussion and all arguments I concluded that he is notable. --hroest 16:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of these appear to be paid obits, just in different local papers: the first in Pasadena Star-News and the second in Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Neutralitytalk 17:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I retract my statement regarding the obituary. I also share your concerns regarding RS, it seems they are very sparse and from the ones in the article it seems only [12] has any info about him, a source I have never heard of before. On the other hand, some RS may be pre-internet. --hroest 01:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the awards does not have the independent coverage that is needed to show notability, and even a staff written obituary in a hyper local paper would not be in and of itself a sign of notability. There is nothing here even remotely suggesting that Haskvitz was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG.--MadD (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waltzing Matilda Aviation[edit]

Waltzing Matilda Aviation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was removed but without a valid reason. Not a notable company, as the size of their fleet and the lack of proper secondary sources indicate. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this fails NCORP, based on available sourcing.--- Possibly (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. Consensus was that the subject does not meet WP:NFF as an unreleased film since the production itself does not meet WP:GNG.

There exists consensus to discount some sources for overlapping coverage (and likely non-independence) when determining whether the production meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Boogeywoman[edit]

American Boogeywoman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON fails WP:NFF as no indication out of pre-production and that principal photography has started. This was moved to Draft space to incubate, which was correct for this but rejected by the author. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Anyone can clearly read in the Deadline article that the film is in post-production phase, from what I see the person who opened this discussion did not even bother to read the links. It is also the prequel to a film known as Monster and will be distributed by an internationally known distributor. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - It seems that the nom tried this, but perhaps if there is wider consensus behind it, it will stick a little longer? To ensure this, you'd probably have to (a) force it to go through AfC (some will cringe), or (b) just wait for at least two reviews per WP:NFO? I don't quite understand your comment, Bruno Rene Vargas. Deadline reports that it's in post-production--OK, that's one potentially reliable piece, but being in post-production doesn't automatically meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG notability requirements. Being a prequel to another film doesn't have any relevance to this film since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. And having an international distributor also doesn't matter as the first part of NFO is being widely distributed with at least two reviews. NFF says filming must have started, but it also says that the production must be notable. Thus far, I am only seeing one independent, reliable report. Casting reports are very rarely independent and these (or at least the one linked) seems to fail WP:NFSOURCES being churn of primary source claims. An independent casting report would mean a reporter dug in and uncovered something unannounced that was later confirmed. Varity Insight seems good for verifying info, but there is zero prose, so it cannot fulfil NFSOURCES.

    Of course, if the production was notable and there are reports out there saying something like "Peyton List was a dream to work with" or "The crew had to work 22 hours a day to get this done, and everyone hates ___" or whatever, I'd be happy to adjust my !vote, but until then, there's no real rush to have this in main space until there is more real independent coverage. I'm 99% sure this will be notable soon, but I don't see enough yet. Pretend there is a fire and all footage is destroyed, and they cut their losses after insurance pays out, never to try again. Is what we have enough to say it was a notable production? Not yet, for me at least. -2pou (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Comment: Ok @2pou:, I agree with what you say in some things but I do not understand why drafity if it is practically 100% sure that the film will have more notability very soon. Also, under the argument of imagining that hypothetical case, the truth is that a great majority of existing articles should be moved to drafts because only mega-productions or films with renowned directors would be taken into account because it is this kind of productions that have hundreds of articles. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're absolutely right. If you see them, you could nominate them, but it's hard to comb through them all unless it's in the WP:NPP feed in order to bring it here. -2pou (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The 5 sources in the article are enough to pass GNG clearly. Reliable, significant coverage that is independent of the source. The rest is irrelevant to an AFD. The length and/or quality of the article is an issue for the talk page and for future editors to improve upon. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think "clearly" is a stretch. See below -2pou (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:2pou
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
1 (Bloody Disgusting) No 3 pieces saying the same thing within a day of Yes ? Most is quoted mat'l--harder to tell how ✘ No
2 (JoBlo) No each other clearly fails WP:NFSOURCES Yes ? much is their work, but moot to analyze. ✘ No
3 (FilmInk) No (i.e. no independence as press release per WP:NFSOURCES) Yes No Same as above, and not even a byline ✘ No
4 (Deadline) Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
5 (Variety Insight) Yes Yes No Zero words (prose) ✘ 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}}.
Comment: You are inventing reasons to dismiss sources that don't follow GNG. Labelling sources as "non-independent" despite at least three of them being unrelated to each other, and unrelated to the subject. You've also quoted an essay as a reason to discount a source. Essays aren't guidelines, anyone can write an essay and they have no weight or bearing on official discussions. It is not surprising to me that multiple sources will report on something once the information is made public, so calling that "churn" anyway is ridiculous. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to remove the essay reference if that is distracting. It was only intended to expound on what the WP:NFSOURCES guideline is saying already in a paragraph--to better articulate for an interested reader what it meant if they want to read instead of ask. The essay is not important to the argument at all. The point was that they are not unrelated to the subject as it is being put out by them—JoBlo straight says it, BD says they're just repeating Deadline, and FilmInk doesn't give a writer because that's common for press release. This falls under what WP:N defers to WP:NFILM for exclusion. Regardless, I doubt I'll sway you, but I will remove the essay, and let the community decide. -2pou (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk 22:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per WP:NFF: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." What is the rush? Kolma8 (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To really establish that this is notable, the film needs to have coverage of the production in some form or fashion. As someone who writes very, very regularly about horror films on Wikipedia, this is often not doable with most films because there aren't that many outlets that really care to report regularly on horror media. Sometimes if something goes mainstream enough it will, but it's never a guarantee.
Now as far as the existing coverage goes, this says that the film is in post, but doesn't really give us anything about the production itself. For example, there's nothing really about where it was filmed, when, or other important info needed to establish that the production was notable. It's relatively rare to find coverage that would firmly establish this, which is why so many horror films don't have articles until fairly late in the game, typically after they're released. Offhand there doesn't look to be coverage to show where production is notable - there needs to be some other details other than "it's in post production" to really establish this. If I have time I'll try to see what I can do, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Part of the issue with establishing notability for films is that we need to be able to establish that the production has received coverage. This is usually done by news articles reporting on the start of filming, announcements of stars coming on to the film, and so on. But with this there's nothing. No coverage of any type until the announcement that the film will release and that it's in post production. This is kind of surprising given the names involved (Tobin Bell for one). The coverage all says effectively the same thing, to the point where it is very, very obvious that they're based off the same press releases.
The issue here is that while there is a brief flurry of coverage, it doesn't really show any depth of coverage because it's all pretty much the same. If some were slightly different and went over the locations or if there were announcements about stars coming on, then it might be easier to argue for a keep but this is just a bit too soon. If this were to sit in post-production hell (which happens A LOT) then this coverage wouldn't be enough to justify it passing NFILM or NFF. TBH, this is fairly common for horror films. They tend to fly under the radar and then spring forth almost fully formed once it's time to release, gain more funding, or sell. This can just sit for a little while until more coverage becomes available. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How long an article might be has nothing to do with if it's notable or not. This article while passing GNG might only need to be a 30 word stub. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about the length, it's about the fact that the existent coverage all states content taken from the same press release. There's no depth of coverage here. If something were to happen and this were to sink into post-development hell, which can and does happen extremely frequently - particularly with horror films - there would not be enough depth of coverage to justify inclusion. The main keep arguments here are arguing for inclusion based on the amount without really taking into account the content of the sourcing. It's not like the sources are written all that differently content-wise or like any of this has info on the production (other than it being in post) or even a review. There's just not enough out there to show a depth of coverage. That's why I think this should be put in draftspace. I think I'm probably one of the more liberal people when it comes to film notability, particularly when it comes to horror, but this just isn't there. It's just not ready yet. There needs to be at least some other coverage to really help establish how this meets NFF. I mean, if there were at least an interview somewhere that would be something but there isn't. There's not much out there other than what was put in the press release that was sent out. I don't think that any of the cast or crew posted on social media about this during filming, that's how little there was out there when I looked. Having an article is just premature at this point. This could release by the end of the year and have a ton of coverage... or it could sit for a few more years on the shelf, completed but not seeing the light of day due to the typical industry stuff that happens with films. We can't judge it based on potential future notability, just on what's here now - which isn't enough in my opinion to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essentially, it's not the length of the article, it's the fact that all of the available coverage is based on a single press release. The outlets can't give any more details because they haven't been given any other than what was in that single press release or what they took from the outlet(s) that reported on said press release. If there was something, anything out there to give more depth of coverage then that would be great - and I definitely looked - but there just wasn't anything. Ultimately all that was told was that the film is in post, has the specified actors, and was purchased, but not anything about where it was filmed or anything along those lines. NFF is pretty much hanging on a single sentence mentioning post-production, which isn't enough given that it's based on multiple outlets reporting on the same press release. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stawell Gift. Daniel (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Jamieson (sprinter)[edit]

Sam Jamieson (sprinter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NTRACK. Has information from only one source, the Herald Sun, which isn't considered to be a reliable secondary source. Nevertheless, the subject does not have significant coverage and does not meet the notability guidelines for their sport. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Stawell Gift - not individually notable person as this race is a community handicap event rather than an elite competition. SFB 14:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nomination shows a complete lack of WP:BEFORE. A basic search shows coverage in multiple other mainstream reliable sources. Even if you are not keen on a stand alone article (might see it as blp1e) there is a clear alternative to deletion as pointed out above. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources are you talking about? – because I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources that talk about him other than very briefly, in passing. He also doesn't meet WP:NTRACK. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [13], [14], [15]. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those three sources hardly make him meet WP:NTRACK. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no evidence of multiple sources that would lead to passing GNG. Ideally people who want to argue for such should add the sourcing to the article. At a minimum they need to cite specific sources in an argument to keep. They key to Wikipedia is verrifiability, which means finding sources, not just asserting they exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk 22:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sillyfolkboy - no one has demonstrated that a merge to there isn't inappropriate. Johnpacklambert's contribution is unhelpful and should be ignored. Deus et lex (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 12:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Street Squats[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Frances Street Squats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously ended up being soft deleted due to lack of participation. Someone WP:REFUND however no compelling sources have been offered. The article from the very beginning was sourced almost entirely from the The Ubyssey which is like a local paper. Another from a different college paper by the same author. I find that this former squat house of the local interest doesn't pass WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:NORG and in determining/WP:SIRS, series of coverage by the same publisher or journalist is considered one source. The student paper as well as local centric sources fail the audience base, because it is a intended for Vancouver area coverage. It also appears that the article's creator was an involved party of the article. Graywalls (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The user who requested WP:REFUND added contents and sources, but it still doesn't amount to significant coverage in media not tailored to local cverage. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to be extensive coverage in the Vancouver Sun, The Province, The Ubyssey, and it's the subject of a chapter of Under the Viaduct: Homeless in Beautiful B.C.. Some of the sources I don't have access to (like the text of that chapter), but considering the amount of pre-web coverage that's accessible or at least visible, I'd imagine there would be even more from contemporary sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment which The Province coverage? I didn't see it cited. Care to explain which source you mean? Local Vancouver matters (local affairs) covered in Vancouver press is hardly a surprise. The Ubyssey is exceedingly local. The Ubyssey would be reliable coverage for that those things happened near the UBC campus, but meaningless for notability. Have you looked at AUD in WP:ORGDEPTH? Also articles that extensively quote long quotes of "the subject organization said..." for the lack of intellectual independence should be properly discounted. That book you talk about is very much locally focused. A chapter in a locally focused isn't much in terms of audience. It's also over reaching to speculate on the coverage significance based on a chapter in a book you don't have access to. Graywalls (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found the Province sources when browsing newspapers.com. I'll have to get back to you with links as I'm now on a computer which doesn't have that login saved. As for the book, according to Worldcat it is held by 66 libraries, only 7 of which are in BC. It may have a local focus, but isn't "local coverage". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:AUD doesn't just concern geographical coverage, but field of interest too. If one tries, they could find books held by a number of libraries that talks about farms in North Plains, OR... or churches on Forest Grove, perhaps in some depth. Those have limited meaning in WP:NORG notability for those places named in the book. Graywalls (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Was this such a notable case that it resulted in any laws being changed, anything changed at all? Is it taught in any textbooks? A search through old newspapers shows its mention along with other squats, they quite common. Dream Focus 01:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this is a valid point. There are locally themed books focused on Oregon Willamette Valley/Wine Country that has a list of vineyards that may have a many pages dedicated to each vineyard going into the vineyard's history, the family, then there are probably local papers that talk about those thing in depth, because they're of importance in the locality. I would say that's still not enough to satisfy creating an article here for that vineyard, unless you say, that vineyard is more greater significance than simply being talked about for a chapter in a local themed, topic specific book. I see no real indication that these group of houses that have become squatted are more than relatively common, run of the mill squatter occupations that happened to get picked up and covered fairly extensively in one source (per SIGCOV, series of coverage by one publication counts as one) Graywalls (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not correct at all. We do not consider audience size or personal judgements, as that leaves us open to losing a lot of proper content, and this was a point made early on in Wikipedia history with the failed "Wikipedia:fame and importance" idea. Most subjects have limited audiences in one way or another, from species of beetle to 1970s music groups. It is writing not reading that counts. A vineyard that has its history, geography, economics, and whatnot independently documented in depth by multiple people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy is as valid a subject as a city that has history, geography, economics, and whatnot so documented.

        Indeed, to the contrary: local history books are often very good sources, especially compared to the alternative such as robot-creating articles from GNIS database entries. I have found, for example, the Arcadia Publishing ones invaluable for rewriting things such as Robert, California (AfD discussion) or Escalle, Larkspur, California, and equally for filtering out truly non-notable things like The Arboretum, Charlotte (AfD discussion). Local history books point the way, and newspapers and other stuff flesh thing out, correct errors, and suchlike.

        This subject is another case in point. The only major coverage that I could find, stating how important the author thought it was, turned out to be authored by one of the squatters. And the article started out sourced to squatter press releases. There's a lot more independent coverage of "Woodsquat" at Woodward's department store in Vancouver than there is of this. It's that that has actually escaped its authors/creators and been independently documented in depth, with background and analysis. A geography professor has discussed it, for example, in Blomley 2004, pp. 39–50, as has another professor, in a university press book (Robertson 2011). (There is nothing similar for this squat that I can find.) The erstwhile photograph manager of the Vancouver Sun includes it, per xyr talk on these sorts of things and presumably in the connected book Bird & Demers 2017. That is definitely multiple people.

        And once again Special:Whatlinkshere/Woodsquat tells us that we did not even know that we did not have this.

        • Blomley, Nicholas (2004). Unsettling the City: Urban Land and the Politics of Property. Routledge. ISBN 9781135954192.
        • Robertson, Kirsty (2019). Tear Gas Epiphanies: Protest, Culture, Museums. McGill-Queen's/Beaverbrook Canadian Foundation Studies in Art History. Vol. 27. McGill-Queen's Press. ISBN 9780773558298.
        • Bird, Kate; Demers, Charles (2017). City on Edge: A Rebellious Century of Vancouver Protests, Riots, and Strikes. Greystone Books. ISBN 9781771643139.
        Uncle G (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The examples you provided are not organizations or companies.WP:NORG is a SNG with emphasis on sourcing to prevent promotional articles that organizations/companies articles are susceptible to. In notability, under WP:SIRS, media of limited interest (which local coverage would be) are specifically discounted for notability building purposes. But, with regard to this article, it seems like you're suggesting it fails to meet notability requirements. Graywalls (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, that is wrong. Excluding limited interest sources loses the beetles and the like, as their sources are limited interest too. It is sources that are not independent or trivial that are discounted, which includes press releases, even recycled ones masquerading as newspaper reporting, and stuff authored by the subject or its inventors/founders/creators/whatnot such as Bruce Gongola writing in that volume of West Coast Line. Few people seem to have noticed that Wulwick in West Coast Line is a press release by the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty written in the first person. I know why Rhododendrites thinks that there's "an entire chapter" in a book about this, because I found the same book review. However, I've actually looked at that book. This "entire chapter" is first-person interviews with the squatters (all in quotation marks), followed by Squatters Alliance of Vancouver Press Statement (which is clear on its face), followed by Chu 1991 which is another first-person analysis by one of the squatters.
            • Chu, Keith (1991). "The Frances Steet Squats" (PDF). In Baxter, Sheila (ed.). Under the Viaduct: Homeless in Beautiful BC. Vancouver: New Star Books. pp. 80–88.
            The existence of multiple sources independent of the subject is the step that this subject fails on, as only the Vancouver Sun has independently published anything about this. (I haven't turned up the other newspaper sources waved at above.) There's lots of autobiographical stuff from the actual squatters themselves, but the subject hasn't escaped just them to be independently documented in depth by multiple other people as Woodsquat has.

            And if the squat that I hyperlinked isn't an organization or a company, then this also a squat isn't either; not that that matters because these principles apply well to everything, from beetles to squats.

            Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Graywalls, throughout this discussion you keep arguing based on WP:CORP (WP:AUD, etc.). This isn't a corporation or organization. It's a set of six houses. We're looking for GNG, not NCORP. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see it differently. They're a group of houses, organized by squatter occupants who have collectively organized them into "Frances Street Squats", a collective action of two of more people, thus I believe that NORG is appropriate Graywalls (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They did organize themselves into an organization, which is mentioned in this article. This article is not about that organization. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found a public-interest journalism source from 2016 that reports on the Frances Street Squats in the context of other squats, and mentions the documentary about the Frances Street Squats, which is linked in the External Links section of the article. This commentary, along with the documentary, appear to support WP:ORGDEPTH (the guideline specifically identifies a documentary film as an example of substantial coverage, and also states at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary, which the source linked above and the documentary appear to satisfy), and there is another source, albeit from a student writing on a Pacific Rim College website in 2018, that describes the Frances Street Squats as "one of the largest and most notable public squats in Canadian history," which suggests that additional sources may WP:NEXIST. The article also is already more than a stub, which is part of what the WP:ORGDEPTH guideline seems concerned with avoiding. Beccaynr (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
op-ed. Did you see that this is an OPINION piece? "Opinion by Jakub Markiewicz" ? Graywalls (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and per WP:ORGDEPTH, Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization (emphasis added), and it includes reporting on the Frances Street Squats and the reference to a screening of the documentary as part of the larger opinion article, which both seem to emphasize the enduring notability of the Frances Street Squats long past the initial burst of news coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reading there, I see coverage, but not sigcov. FWIW Graywalls (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and it does not appear to be a trivial mention per that guideline due to the commentary and context, nor within the list of examples of what constitutes trivial coverage in WP:ORGDEPTH, e.g. listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary. Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage highlighted above is not sufficient, it fails WP:GNG - the coverage in independent sources is not in-depth - I’m sure I could find a similar depth of coverage about my local grocery store. Additionally WP:ORG is the relevant policy and that requires a greater depth of non-local coverage than GNG. Those arguing it is not an organisation but a collection of buildings should consider that it obviously fails WP:NBUILD too. --Pontificalibus 11:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of properties of Hilton Worldwide[edit]

List of properties of Hilton Worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a directory that violates WP:NOTDIR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Aausterm (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep No, it's not a directory because it doesn't include contact information. It's a list and, insofar as it contains several blue links, that's fine. If the red links and plain entries don't seem useful then they can be removed by ordinary editing. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Category:Hilton Hotels & Resorts hotels has 120 articles, how does the scope of that category compare to what was intended with this list? Nom is a WP:VAGUEWAVE currently. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This violates the simple listings part of the WP:NOTDIR as it just provides a listing of locations. Most of them are non notable and the notable ones are already covered by the Category:Hilton Hotels & Resorts hotels. If this page is to be kept, it will need to be changed Aausterm (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:NOTDUP, we don't delete lists just because there is a category. Needing to change is not a reason for deletion, and it is common practice to limit many lists to only notable examples if that is what consensus determines is appropriate here. postdlf (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a directory of mostly non notable hotel franchises and accompanied by their official websites. Clear cut WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is WP:OR and fails WP:LISTN - there are no sources cited that confirm all these properties are operated, owned or franchised by Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. and not some other entity. Seeing a hotel branded as Hilton outside the US and assuming it should be on this list is a big leap that should not be made. Also, the group of hotels of Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. is not notable - there are no sources discussing this group in detail. There might be scope for a navigational list more closely related to the category of Category:Hilton Hotels & Resorts hotels, but this isn't it.----Pontificalibus 06:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 09:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Szalowski[edit]

Pierre Szalowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NAUTHOR. As usual, every writer does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- the notability test requires some indication of his significance, such as winning major literary awards and/or having enough critical attention paid to his work in newspapers and literary review journals to pass WP:GNG. But this literally just states that he exists, and references that existence exclusively to his "our authors" profile on the directly affiliated website of his own publisher and a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself in the first person on a non-notable and unreliable blog -- neither of which are sources that can support notability. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have far more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is decent coverage in French. I added four sources, including LaPresse, Le Devoir, and Voir, which are good publications here (in Quebec). His books have been subject to independent in-depth reviews. (General statement: pretty much all the coverage is in French, so if you cannot read French it is going to be difficult to assess this one.)--- Possibly (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have now added nine sources. Four of those are for the Cinematheque quebecoise, which is a museum of Quebec cinema. What I am seeing overall is three decent-size independent profiles on him, a significant prize (Archambault prize), a tv episode that he was the subject of (Au Coeur du Cinema Quebecois) and three works that he wrote or directed are in the Cinematheque quebecoise's permanent collection. I am thinking this meets GNG.--- Possibly (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In particular, further discussion can consider new sources that were brought up during the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk 22:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_April_1&oldid=1017187600"