Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 10

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Smokey Fontaine

Smokey Fontaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no substantive coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The only sourcing in this article is from a student magazine at Wesleyan University. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Fontaine gets mentioned in lots of publised sources. However this is almost always as a brief aside in a biography of one of his parents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and lack of RIS. No way this passes WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Megtetg34 (talk) 20:19, 17 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, notability has been pretty clearly demonstrated by the sourcing found. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Syberia: The World Before

Syberia: The World Before (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 video game has received no coverage in secondary sources, there are no reviews listed on Metacritic and a search brought up nothing that would contribute to notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Really? What about these?

References

SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@SailingInABathTub:, The PC Gamer article is good, but Softpedia is not good for notability according to WP:VG/RS, since it publishes articles by request, while The Sixth Axis is explicitly listed as unreliable, and the others are too obscure to even be listed there, meaning they are likely not reliable. Fair play on finding the sources, but they still do not look like enough to prove notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat:, actually per WP:RSPSOURCES, "Softpedia is considered reliable for its software and product reviews", and the others have not been discussed, so there is no consensus either way. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The article is in an awful state, but it's nothing that can be fixed. Metacritic won't have reviews, as the game is yet to release. I managed to find non-trivial coverage of the prologue demo in Adventure Gamers [1] and IGN Italy [2], which make it a pass of WP:GNG, and it's bound to receive more when it actually releases. There is an additional one in Games.cz at [3], but it'd need to be checked for reliability. I also wouldn't oppose draftfying if needed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:01, 12 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. ✗plicit 00:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

JustAnswer

JustAnswer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Essentially an advertisement, with recent efforts to make it even worse. The WSJ and Tech Crunch items are mere announcements of funding, and there is nothing else even remotely reliable: the HufPost is by a "contributor", which makes it not a reliable source, and bizjournals is a site for PR. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete — Per DGG, this is a blatant advertisement on a non notable organization that doesn’t meet WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

*Delete As per nom and above. Fails GNG. Citterz (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Lack coverage in RIS, and fails WP:NCORP. Megtetg34 (talk) 20:22, 17 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 merge to Health effects of tobacco. Selectively and carefully, as discussed below. Sandstein 09:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Smoker's paradox

Smoker's paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

After reviewing the article's citations and searching for secondary sources on PubMed, one draws the conclusion that Smoker's paradox (SP) is not a term used in the literature for all cases of a possible inverse correlation between smoking and a disease's incidence or severity; it is rather almost exclusively used for cardiovascular diseases, and COVID19 as of late. There is only one source, and actually far from what is considered a good medical one, that uses the term for general in-hospital mortality. (In PubMed there's a study of trauma mortality drawing the conclusion of a "SP"; and there are some articles referring to the "smoking paradox" in the blunted correlation between smoking and lung cancer in Asian populations, and in psoriasis.) So the definition of SP in the article is unsubstantiated, and the article's current area of focus is wider than can be attributed to sources. Any synthesis of information from existing sources to talk about a wide ranging SP concept - like the current article does - would be a type of original research.

In the groups of diseases where the existence of SP has been hypothesized, namely cardiovascular diseases and COVID-19, it is far from certain. As a statistical phenomenon, SP reappears in medical literature in the last 25 years for various findings, which are for the most part either attributed to confounding factors or eventually refuted. Furthermore, it has currently no clinical significance, as nobody has ever suggested that patients should not quit smoking, and no treatment implications have been accepted. Even so, some very careful mention of SP as an unconfirmed concept could be considered in health effects of tobacco, myocardial infarction or myocardial revascularization, but the body of literature definitely doesn't warrant an independent article. Given that the majority of sources are primary ones, merging of the article as it is to health effects of tobacco doesn't seem appealing either.

I have notified the article's creator of the issues, and they kindly recognized them.

References

NikosGouliaros (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to health effects of tobacco (only), and then remove nearly all of the contents so that it amounts to "some very careful mention of SP as an unconfirmed concept". The ==History== section might be the best location. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge per WAID. Vaticidalprophet 07:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge per WAID. 31.50.193.212 (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding In trying to clarify the content in line with a more historical perspective, the page has grown a bit. Since I'm epidemiologically nerdy enough to find this sort of thing informative - and in the case of a Parkinson's disease genuinely intriguing - I'm ultimately agnostic about whether it's better to MERGE or KEEP. (Fwiw, if others decided for KEEP, I could try to improve the page; on the other hand I wouldn't care to have tpo do the merging :-) 31.50.193.212 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel the need to repeat that the term "smoker's paradox" has never, to my knowing, been used in Parkinson's disease (PD), or indeed anywhere else on a repeated, long-term basis, outside cardiovascular disease. Given that smoking has not been implicated in the pathophysiology of PD, the reverse correlation found is not a true paradox. For this reason, the article in its current state or in the state it was when proposed for deletion has almost nothing to merit adding to health effects of tobacco. "Smoker's paradox" has not been used in reliable medical literature as an umbrella term to refer generally to the finding of inverse correlation between smoking and any given disease; this means that even after all the work IP and other contributors have put to it, it remains heavily laden with primary synthesis of published material. Merging it is unwarranted. NikosGouliaros (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

NikosGouliaros, my initial reaction is that I quite strongly disagree with your claims as representing (it would seem, no offence :) your own (unsupported) pov. However, having worked on a page that - coming as I do from a background of medical writing in the field of epidemiology - appears to me intrinsically interesting and possibly educational I feel that I now have some sort of an individual coi, and I wish to recuse myself from the !vote (full disclosure: I was intending to do this anyway, perhaps after sleeping on it). I absolutely understand where people are coming from who may be concerned that the page could be construed as a medical apology for smoking, but I don't think any gf reader could honestly claim that in its current form. Ultimately, I suspect that this sort of decision may come down to individual exclusionist/inclusionist tendencies; fwiw, my own rule thumb goes something like "if, as a lay reader, I was looking for reliable information on this subject, would I find the present page helpful?" And here I feel the answer could be "yes", which is why I've tried to improve the page. Perhaps I should add that the issue was by no means new to me: for decades, when people asked me questions like "isn't smoking beneficial for anything healthwise?" I've answered "just possiblyif you know that you're at high risk of developing Parkinson's disease, a little..." Cheers, 31.50.193.212 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No offense taken. I only cannot see what point of view I can be thought of representing, other than that the article, in its current form (let alone as it was before much of material from primary sources was removed), is unsupported by reliable sources with regard to the SP. On the other hand, I see how my writing that the article has nothing worth merging could be misunderstood: I meant nothing worth merging under the title "Smoker's paradox". I clarify that I consider the included information on Parkinson's perfectly worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (and there's already a mention in Health effects of tobacco#Benefits), just not in connection to the SP concept; this and only this is what I consider synthesis of published material: describing the effects of smoking on PD under the title "SP". Again, SP, if we stick to reliable sources, can't be the title of any text on the positive effects of smoking in general. Finally, I note that I have expressed worries I have never expressed worries that the article may become an apology for smoking; and I cannot see any COI in your vote. NikosGouliaros (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtfulness and kind words Nikos. Always appreciated. 86.186.168.248 (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep (but maybe rename). It might be a dubious concept, with only scant mention in literature and maybe even only older lit if it's been discarded as a theory or no longer of interest, and the term itself might not be specifically used for some effects that are now discussed in the article. But either taken as the strict literature use, or as the broader sense, it's a well-defined topic that does have mention in the literature and seems quite different than the concepts covered in the main health-effects article. And it's a novel concept, that we can write about dispassionately. I fundamentally reject that merely having this as its own article is any sort of advocacy or appologetics; WP:N is how we know. Therefore, I think it should be a self-contained sub-article as long as we have sources that support it. I agree we need reliable sources, but I don't think the past-decade limit of MEDRS is appropriate if the whole concept was only studied prior to that timeframe. It's an editorial decision whether "smoker's paradox" should be kept as the strict set of cases where this term is applied in the literature or as a wiki-editor/lay-language term for the broader scope. And if broader, should we instead use a different lay-language term to avoid mixing it up with the medical term. DMacks (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's another recent pooled-studies article in the coronary arena: doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2019.06.034. So we have apparent MEDRS for this aspect and limited meaning of the phrase. Do we hae MEDRS for the COVID aspect? We have at least some sources for use of this term in that context. And we have other sources for use of this term in other-other contexts. So I don't think it's SYNTH to use this phrase broadly. DMacks (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

This is (important) primary research on SP in cardiovascular disease. NikosGouliaros (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC) NikosGouliaros (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, but maybe rename... but I'm not against a sensible merge either. There is a well-referenced history of results around smoking and cardiovascular diseases that tell a complicated but important epidemiological story. As per DMacks, this is not apologetics. I agree with others here that we need to be careful about the name. I would remove other potential beneficial results of smoking, as with Parkinson's, from here and expand Health_effects_of_tobacco#Benefits. Health_effects_of_tobacco#Benefits could also say something about the value of nicotine in the treatment of colitis, for example. Bondegezou (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I agree with your point about the epidemiological story (assuming Wikipedia has the ability, going forward, to curate/update per WP:MEDDATE). But why exclude Parkinson's disease if this is also well-referenced and a continuing area of research. 86.186.168.248 (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Because it's not part of the same story. We have MEDRS-compliant citations to support the epidemiological story of the "smoker's paradox" about cardiovascular disease and smoking. We also have MEDRS-compliant citations about the potential beneficial effects of smoking/nicotine in Parkinson's and in colitis, but those are not called the "smoker's paradox", reflect different phenomena and are not linked together by MEDRS-compliant citations. Bondegezou (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Bondegezou, Ok I can see where you're coming from now (and that consideration seems to feed in to some discussion here about the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the page name). Searching PubMed for "smoker's paradox" or "smoking paradox" without filtering for reviews etc (in the belief WP:MEDRS may not apply to this basically non-biomedical, lexical question - ping WAID for her opinion) indicates[4][5] that although usage of the term(s) appears most common for cardiovascular disease, that isn't entirely the case (and, for example... would paradoxes regarding ethnicity fit the scope of the page? cf pmid:28092929, etc). Fwiw, my development of the PD question within the apparent scope of the page (WP:OOP?) was based on 1) the broader-brush definition in the lead, which, however, currently[6] remains unsourced; 2) similarities in the underlying methodological issues regarding the interpretative challenges posed by a series of apparently consisistent but paradoxical findings derived from observational research on smoking (even when the term paradox etc isn't explicitly used); and 3) perceived topicality. Clearly, I'm too involved by now with the Parkinson's content to be independent here, haha. 86.186.168.248 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to health effects of tobacco. All the content can be covered there. --Spyder212 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge - I agree that medical sources aren't necessary to support vocabulary; the term can be mentioned in passing. Any positive correlations should clearly be mentioned in the health effects article anyway. -- Beland (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No argument to keep has been provided, and the argument to merge has been convincingly rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

CHERUBS

CHERUBS (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'm finding only trivial coverage of this organization in independent sources - nothing that would meet WP:ORG. There are a couple of passing mentions, and there is a local interest piece in a North Carolina newspaper. The organization is described as changing its name to CDH International a few years ago (or becoming the support arm of CDH International), but a search for the new name doesn't return anything of significance. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Fail WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Congenital diaphragmatic hernia under a section detailing social responses to the disesase. BD2412 T 00:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment No, This can't be merge, as this is not the only NGO for this disease. If we merge then we have to list all the similar NGO in it, which might not be very notable. Sonofstar (talk) 15:20, 18 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. WP:SPA IP !votes and opinions of low-participation editors are discounted for lacking a grasp of Wikipedia's policies for inclusion; the remaining participation evinces a clear consensus for deletion. In the interests of preserving information, however, I have redirected the title to the personal life section for his more notable father, Matthew Fosh. BD2412 T 00:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Max Fosh

Max Fosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fosh currently isn't notable as either a YouTube personality or a politician. This page was deleted after a successful proposed deletion in March (log) and a more recent proposed deletion was removed, on procedural grounds due to the article's subsequent recreation rather than on a claim of notability. The current state of reliable source material relating to Fosh comprises routine election coverage and coverage of his YouTube hijinks, rather than coverage of Fosh himself. The details about Fosh contained in that coverage do not amount to significant coverage required by the general notability guideline, with no publication going into significant depth for even a cursory well-sourced encyclopedia article to be written about him. WP:NYOUTUBE tells us that YouTubers in deletion discussions are usually expected to additionally meet criteria from WP:ENT. I don't think there is evidence to support his meeting those criteria either. In terms of the size of his audience, WP:NYOUTUBE tells us that only 22% of deletion discussions about a YouTuber with a number of subscribers in the same range as Fosh's result in the article being kept, so I don't think that his number of subscribers qualifies him as meeting WP:ENT's criterion of having a significant "cult" following. As a politician, he doesn't meet WP:NPOL's requirements for being elected to political office, though if he is elected mayor of London he would. Ralbegen (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Soon there will be enough media coverage to consider him notable. So I say we just leave the article. You know it's going to be created every once in a while. You can't keep nominating it for deletion. To constantly remove people's work is just abusive. There are enough YouTuber stubs that aren't constantly being removed. - LouisCartier (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee213.48.238.103 (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ralbegen (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, seems like a clear-cut case to me. Related election coverage essentially reduces him to his status as a (comparatively low-profile) Lord Buckethead-type novelty candidate, but nothing to satisfy any particular criteria. AngryHarpy‍^talk 07:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: clearly fails WP:NPOL. LouisCartier's argument above is mistaken: additional media coverage of any significance about Fosh has not grown since he announced his campaign. If any does appear, as per WP:NPOL, election coverage should go in the election article, not in separate articles for the candidates. (In the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely event that Fosh should win, we can re-create the article.) There are 8 other candidates in the election who don't have articles. Bondegezou (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. None of us have a WP:CRYSTALBALL, so we must wait until criteria are met before recreating this article. The existence of other articles that may need to be deleted is no justification for keeping this one. I would also recommend a temporary moratorium on re-creating this article, given that it's now popped up twice in the last 3 weeks, and cannot be PROD-ded. Domeditrix (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Support WP:SALTing. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Following today's vandalism (see the page log), I think WP:SALTing is an absolute necessity. Domeditrix (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. He is not a politician, WP:NPOL is irrelevant. He is a YouTuber, an entertainer. I would consider the fact that he is a mayoral candidate a quite unique and innovative contribution and he is growing a large fan base. Salting is too drastic in my opinion. - LouisCartier (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political candidates. He is not a notable YouTuber, not a notable personality, and has not notable achievements in politics or entertainment (broadly defined). I agree with the comments above about his notability and why the article should be deleted, and possibly protected from re-creation doktorb _words^deeds 12:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete neither candidates nor Youtubers are not inherently notable, and GNG's not clear. SportingFlyer T·C 15:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Note that the article has been expanded since a lot of the above discussion. There are some additional citations that editors may want to consider. (I'm not convinced myself that they add up to enough, but there's more than there were.) Bondegezou (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Look, I'm not experienced with the criteria, but if 22% of people with his size of following are kept I would say he should be in that 22%. He is a YouTuber running in the UK's most prominent mayoral election - and has received quite a bit of news coverage - e.g. from the Tab . Just running for Mayor or just being a youtuber might be reason for deletion but together they might keep him here. DolphinSassoon (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

References

• Keep epiiiiicccccccc 92.27.126.110 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Why would you delete it? He's got over 400k subscribers, he's know by far more people that many who have Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia seems very outdated in not considering youtubers as notable enough. Also if Count Binface has a page on the grounds of being a politician, the Max Fosh should too, he'll almost certainly get more votes than Binface in the election. I don't really care about your regulations, they're outdated and just bad. Leave the page up!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:598D:CD00:C502:B0A1:A7B:4764 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment to the admin closing this. The article has been updated since this nomination, more than anything it looks like a WP:REFBOMB in an attempt to save the article. There are sources that mention the subject only in passing (LadBible: Frosties Kid Rumoured To Have Died Says Advert Brought Heartache To His Parents) or not at all (BBC: Hemel Hempstead voted the 'ugliest' town in Britain), alongside local news stories referring to stunts carried out by the subject (clearly trying to make news) that refer to him only as 'Former Newcastle student', 'YouTube star' or 'fake model'. This is in addition to padding out the reference list by including links to the subject's YouTube channel, Facebook, and through foreign-lanugauge links to publications referred to extremely infrequently on Wikipedia. Examples of these are wolipop (used as a reference in fewer than 20 other articles across this version of Wikipedia, no RFC regarding its reliability), nd.nl (used as a reference in fewer than 20 other articles across this version of Wikipedia, no RFC regarding its reliability) and Ulyces.co (not used as a reference by any other articles across this version of Wikipedia, no RFC regarding its reliability). Please take care to see through this obvious attempt to fool a reviewer into thinking that notability criteria have been met. Domeditrix (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin As per @Domeditrix: above, I too notice that editors, perhaps related to the Keep votes above, have rushed to fill the article with citations in a hope to make the article look sourced "enough". I can see right through it. I'm sure admins can too. But it's worth noticing what is being cited, not just the numbers of references. doktorb _words^deeds 04:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. As yet unelected candidates for mayor of a city do not get Wikipedia articles on that basis per se — a person has to hold a notable political office, not just run for one, to be notable on political grounds, and the idea expressed above that political candidates aren't politicians, and thus can't be measured against NPOL at all, is a laughable non-starter: preventing articles about unelected political candidates who don't pass any other inclusion criteria independently of the candidacy is precisely the point of NPOL, so trying to argue that political candidates aren't subject to it is doomed to fail. And the number of subscribers that a person does or doesn't have on a social media platform have absolutely jack spit to do with our notability criteria in any occupation — the notability test hinges on attention from real media, not from social media. But the references here are all either unreliable sources or glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things, which is not how you source a person over WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to pass any specific notability criteria — we're looking for reliable source coverage about him, not just any web page people can find that happens to have his name in it. And anybody who thinks that "if somebody else has a page then this person automatically has to have a page as well" is strongly advised to read WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, specifically the parts about how (a) the pages may not actually be genuinely equivalent, because there may be different circumstances and different sourceabilities, and (b) WAX arguments can backfire by causing the other article to be nominated for deletion too. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:GNG failure is still apparent in spite of the refbombing of passing mentions and articles that don't even mention the subject Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - He is a notable YouTuber. Sahaib (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per connection to realjamesh :) 194.76.238.231 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment The above IP editor appears to be associated with mass repeated vandalism of the article today. Bondegezou (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Draftify To me, it seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. If he wins, yes he will be covered a lot. But I'd wait until we see the results. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, I don't think it takes a WP:CRYSTALBALL to say that he won't be the next mayor of London... AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - I think hes notable enough as a Youtuber, though the article certainly needs work to be less focused on the mayoral campaign. Especially his Fashion Week stunt and the recent BBC application story got enough coverage to justify an inclusion under the "unique or innovative" criteria. Actually improving the article seems more productive than constant deletion discussions and inevitable re-creation. jonas (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and Bearcat's thorough analysis, and fully support WP:SALT per Domeditrix observations. Also, and because this has come up in several AFD debates lately, the argument that social media followings, such as YouTube in this article, equates to WP:ENT criterion: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following needs to be revisited in my opinion. Frankly, I think the WP:ENT policy guidelines should outline that social media followers ought not be considered to meet criterion #2 since the number of followers can be manipulated through the purchase of online websites. This is somewhat touched on in WP:NYOUTUBE, but editors insistent on inclusion of these social media stars continue to point to, and rest their case solely on WP:ENT criterion #2 whether SIGCOV in multiple RIS is available or not. Megtetg34 (talk) 20:51, 17 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 merge to Fort Lee, New Jersey. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Fort Lee Police Department

Fort Lee Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per the same reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tustin Police Department: "See WP:CORP. A local police department that does not have any real inherent notability." Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge / Redirect to Fort Lee, New Jersey - There is encyclopedic content that should be merged to the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

*Merge / Redirect to Fort Lee, New Jersey As per all above. Citterz (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to Fort Lee, New Jersey. These is not enough on this department to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - whereas not having a lead section is a weakness, deletion is not improvement. Had the energy spent on trying to delete this been invested in improvements, the article would shine. Well sourced. XavierItzm (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I'm not going to spend a few hours cleaning up this crap of an article when it's just a random police department for a town of 35,000 people. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Exactly. There you go. If you were doing WP:BEFORE, item C.1, you would see that per policy this is not a suitable candidate for deletion. XavierItzm (talk) 20:27, 17 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 and redirect to List of defunct airlines of Russia. as WP:ATD - plausible search term ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Aerofreight Airlines

Aerofreight Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. The only thig here is WP:ROUTINE information that it existed. No significant coverage, no notable events. Tvx1 22:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tvx1 22:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for businesses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet WP:GNG based on the refs listed and I can't find anything meaningful in English. It's possible there's something out there in Russian but it's not obvious. The airline definitely existed, but needs reliable sources.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of defunct airlines of Russia, where it belongs and is already mentioned. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: No reliable sources. Sonofstar (talk) 18:26, 17 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

BioHazard

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/BioHazard
• Articles for deletion/BioHazard (2nd nomination)

BioHazard (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 citations in the article to demonstrate notability Nightscream (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, per above. The first deletion discussion ended after three editors asserted it was notable, and one did not. That is hardly representative of the consensus of the editing community. One of those editors claimed the sunbect was "Evidently notable. The rest is cleanup which is not a matter for AFD." The link does not direct to any sources that mention the subject, and the problems with this stub are not merely ones of cleanup. Articles on Wikipedia have to demonstrate why the subject is notable. You can't just "declare" in an AfD that something is "evidently" notable and leave it at that. Those who created the article -- or who otherwise favor keeping -- need to step up to the plate and do some work to make the article passable by WP:NOTE. None of the three editors who insisted that this topic was notable bothered to do any of the work in this regard, and that discussion ended over 13 years ago. This is absurd. Let's meet halfway: People like me who insist that at least two or three reliable, secondary sources need to be in the article should be willing to give some time the inclusionists, and they should roll up their sleeves do some work to get the article up to WP standards. Perching oneself on an AfD pedestal and decreeing that well, someone needs to do cleanup, only for no one to do so after 13 years, is not the way to produce good articles. Either those who favor this article should do the work to wikify it, or it needs to be deleted. Period. Insisting on keeping it, and then leaving it like this just plain hypocritical, and is a way to treat this project with contempt. Nightscream (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. I've just added seven sources about this bot. If anyone wants to expand the article with technical specifications, then I particularly recommend the Design News article. That article, plus 17 others about this bot, are available via ProQuest to any editor who has gotten their Wikipedia Library Card. Just login, click on the ProQuest link, and put biohazard Bertocchini into the search field to find them. You'll get 19 results, and 18 of them are about this robot. Also, I think that the May 2006 issue of SERVO Magazine includes some information about this robot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @ Nightscream per WP:BEFORE C.1. "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." the current state of the sources on the article is not a criteria for deletion, Jeepday (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep My google book search (BioHazard battlebots -wikipedia) found lots of references easily meets WP:GNG plus the references added to the article by WhatamIdoing clearly a keeper. Jeepday (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion about sources that specifically go towards meeting notability guidelines may help develop consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21, are you looking for a statement that says something like "The Los Angeles Times is a national newspaper that published hundreds of words about this subject, which obviously shows notability" or "Wired (magazine) is listed as generally reliable at WP:RSP, and it ran a three-thousand-word-long story about this subject in general and 500 words specifically about this device, which is definitely SIGCOV"? If that's the kind of information you need, then you could have just looked at the sources... WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I just meant that as a suggestion for other editors/comments after the relist. It wasn't the reason for the relist, which principally was that further participation & discussion may help develop a clearer consensus. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21, I think the consensus actually is clear: For better or worse, the subject is notable. The nom didn't see any sources in the article, and it's not an "obvious" subject. Even someone doing a proper BEFORE-style source might not happen to look in the "right" place, especially with such a generic subject name, and I didn't expect to find this much detail myself. But lots of reliable sources clearly do exist, and that means we're done here. It simply wouldn't be credible now for editors to claim that this subject doesn't pass the GNG standards. I think that re-listing is wasting people's time. We use re-listing when there is a real chance that the outcome could go the other way. There is no real chance of that now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not so clear-cut. There are two editors !voting keep and one !voting delete, with new sources having been brought up at the very end of the discussion period. One of the keep !votes does not mention any notability guidelines, both keep !votes do not say if there is actually significant coverage, and the delete !voter did not consider the sources brought up the day before the end of the 7-day period. To me, that makes up a discussion with few participants that could benefit from more specific guideline-based arguments and therefore is appropriate for WP:RELIST.

To expand on the above, the delete !vote only says that there is no RS coverage presented (as well as a non-guideline cleanup-based argument). Similarly, your comment pre-relist says that there exist 18 sources with technical specifications of this robot, not that there is significant coverage in them. It's up to editors in the discussion to decide whether the subject satisfies a guideline; for example, whether the few mentions of this robot in the LA Times article is actually significant coverage towards GNG. It's not for a potential closer to examine the 18 sources themselves and decide based on that whether a guideline has been met. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks pretty clear to me. The only delete vote is from the nominator, who's argument is not consistent with policy, as I point out in my comment at 17:20, 9 April 2021 (line separate from my vote) and two keep votes. Looks like a clear close as keep to me, alternately it could be closed as non-consensus (though I don't see that) in either case the closure is not going to be delete. Jeepday (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Well sourced enough. XavierItzm (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Change my position to Keep The sources that WhatamIdoing added to the article definitely bring it in line with Wikipedia policy, at least apparently. Many thanks to him for actually being willing to roll up his/her sleeves and do that work, instead of just sitting on the sidelines. Nightscream (talk) 20:12, 17 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

No You Turn

No You Turn (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 music group; no independent references HalJor (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. I'm seeing any sort of coverage on the topic anywhere. Megtetg34 (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and per the above. No indication that this group meets criteria for inclusion. BD2412 T 05:48, 18 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 keep. Bringing this to AfD again only two weeks after the previous AfD was closed "keep" is highly inappropriate and disruptive. If you don't agree with the close, then WP:DRV is the place to go. Randykitty (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Northern Independence Party

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Northern Independence Party
• Articles for deletion/Northern Independence Party (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Northern Independence Party (3rd nomination)

Northern Independence Party (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 deleted through AfD on November 2020. Article recreated, which I thought was against policy, certainly a recreation which did not improve on concerns about notability. Article has continuous and constant notability concerns. Notability tag is added and removed constantly. 2nd AfD was plagued by editors being encouraged by the party's active Twitter account to vote !keep.

The party is not registered with the Electoral Commission. This means they fail GNG and ORG. The party has not achieved any notable election results. This means they fail GNG. The party has no notable people involved or associated with them. This means they fail GNG.

I am concerned that the article was allowed to be recreated after AfD, which is against policy, without any justification for the article's existence. I am sorry - truly - to take this to AfD for a third time. But I genuinely believe that the article should not be hosted on Wikipedia and I trust that the wider community agrees with me. doktorb _words^deeds 19:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 19:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 19:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

doktorb, Could you possibly indicate the exact wording of WP:GNG which you feel supports the assertion that: 1) parties that are not registered with the electoral commission are not notable, 2) parties that have not received notable election results are not notable, 3) parties not associated with notable individuals are not notable? As I understand GNG very clearly states that the necessary criteria is coverage in Reliable Sources, which undoubtedly exists.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep None of the reasons Doktorbuk cites as reasons the article fails GNG are valid reasons for it to fail GNG. GNG is quite explicit in what criteria need to be met to pass it; "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". NIP has received such coverage, per the last AfD. Sam Walton (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy close and WP:TROUT for OP. While I have my doubts about the notability of this party, I think starting a 3rd AfD only two weeks after the last one is poor form and a bit of a time waste, really. Trout for Doktorbuk for this one -- he should have at least waited until after the by-election. — Czello 19:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• speedy keep General notability guidelines do not require a party to be registered with the electoral commission, they do not require electoral success, they do not require "notable people" to be associated with them. They require significant coverage in reliable sources, which the party had in spades two weeks ago, and blow me if it doesn't have even more today. This nomination is frivolous to the point of absurdity, I am at a loss to understand what is going on here, because it seems to have nothing to do with the application of WP:GNG.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, though I'm also concerned with how quickly this AfD came up after the last one, and how specific groups are so desperate to have a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Or indeed how certain people are desperate enough that they shouldn't have one that they nominate for deletion within a fortnight of the last nomination failing. I would suggest a political motivation for this nomination. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Since this isn't a vote, is your reasoning omitted because it is the same as what you said at the last AfD? Or something else? — Bilorv (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy keep GNG do clearly specify that an article is "presumed" to be suitable if it has significant coverage. This party rather obviously reaches this requirement, and in fact according to the GNG's bullet points, far surpasses the "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" requirement (having several sources dedicated entirely to its name and policies). This is also, in my opinion, far too soon after the previous AfD. My personal advice is to wait until after the Hartlepool by-election to see whether this party's notability persists or not as whether to consider deletion, but for now, this seems frivolous and possibly even politically-motivated. Forvana 19:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Considering how overwhelming the amount of sources supplied by Bilorv is, and how the development for the by-election in Hartlepool is an irrelevant one to this matter (especially as Thelma Walker is still associated with the NIP, thus not even the notability decreases as such), I've changed my vote from a keep to a speedy keep. I'd also like to voice my protest against a potential fourth AfD - this should be the final AfD for the foreseeable future, as the community by then will have then decided twice (considering the evidence proffered, it seems near-obvious which outcome will occur). Forvana 20:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: the only thing that's changed since the last AfD is that something which didn't contribute to notability because it hadn't happened (them having an MP/elected representative), didn't happen. In other words, nothing has changed since the community decided two weeks ago that the article met GNG. If the issue was that the closing admin didn't correctly discount canvassing—which was present—then DRV or approaching the admin would be the right next step. Note that there were plenty of non-canvassed participants arguing for a keep. Doktorb is incorrect that it is "against policy" to recreate an article after a successful AfD if the situation has changed, such as if new sources become available. This is what happened in this case and I've done it several times in other cases too (without any of those articles ever being subsequently deleted, even after further AfDs). It is an extreme misjudgement to take this to AfD a third time after edit warring over a {{notability}} tag, even though you understand that the community decided against deletion a fortnight ago and that there was opposition to a third AfD on the article's talk page.
  If you want instead me to give an argument of the outcome that should happen had there been no discussions yet on this topic, surprise surprise it's a "keep: passes GNG" on the strength of the following in-depth sources, already included in the article: The Guardian (1), The Guardian (2), HuffPost, The Independent, New Statesman (1), New Statesman (2), The Scotsman, The Times. Consider also this source from The Spectator (Australia). There are a separate mass of sources discussing the NIP in the context of Hartlepool only (BBC and The Independent, for example), and another mass of local coverage, and if these were the only sources then a merge to the by-election article would be warranted, but there are sufficiently many national sources containing non-trivial analysis of the NIP's ideology/policy and the context of its founding, so that its GNG claim was never conditional on any Hartlepool by-election result (would be strange if it were considering they had/have a flat 0% chance of winning it). We can see from the present state of the article that non-trivial non-routine details about the party and mainstream media reception to it can be created on the strength of a diversity of reliable sources. — Bilorv (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:N, even more tenuous link to notability than previously. Since the last AfD, the party has failed to register as a political party for the upcoming by-election or in time for local elections. The party has failed to demonstrate any serious support (the most high-profile supporter is a single ex-MP). Simply put, the party is a one trick pony that (understandably) gained some coverage in the press due to the trivia associated with the party's name. Furthermore, the fact that the leader of the party lives in London and hasn't relocated gives credence to the idea that it is more of a PR stunt than a serious attempt at politics. --RaviC (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• procedural comment The essay on renominating for deletion states that after a keep vote the article should not be renominated for another 6 months. The renomination has occurred after an absurdly short period of time, having been closed as keep on the 27th of March. Nothing has happened in the intervening time that contradicts the sole argument of those who argued for keep, that NIP is covered non-trivially in reliable sources. I suggest that the nominator should withdraw the nomination, as it is clearly not justified procedurally. If not, I would call for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion as flawed. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep this nomination is absolutely shameless and should be expunged from the records. No shock to find out which political party the nominator associates with, but I'd like to put it on record that there are definitely no ulterior motives at play. ItsKesha (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - what the actual fuck has changed since the last nomination two weeks ago where the article was closed as keep. This is all highly improper. The northern Independence Party still has a nomination with the electoral commission pending - http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/party-registration-applications/view-current-applications. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Quite obviously passes WP:GNG, I just don't understand any of the arguments for deleting this. These three reliable articles clearly demonstrate the in-depth coverage of the party itself required to pass GNG. Zoozaz1 talk

It's really hard to fathom, the OP has had two whole AfD's to answer the point you make, and as yet has so far managed not to discuss it. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:24, 10 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. ✗plicit 00:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Contract killing in popular culture

Contract killing in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Excessive unreferenced pop culture trivia; while sources could likely be found for some things on the list, I don't think this list is encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete The article is pure trivia better suited for a different sort of Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:SALAT as too broad. Every other crime film/novel has a hitman. John Wick would eliminate this list with a pencil, a frickin' pencil! Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• TV Tropes is thataway. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

*Delete There is no indepth significant coverage available to give it a pass for GNG. Citterz (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 12 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Maine in popular culture

Maine in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Excessive unreferenced pop culture trivia that's heavily reliant on frivolous entries only slightly related to Maine, such as "Red vs. Blue, a comic science fiction video series, features a character named Maine". Waxworker (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Pure trivia.TH1980 (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:SALAT as too broad. (Nobody tell Jessica Fletcher, lest we end up writing about Murders, She Committed.) Also delete Rhode Island in popular culture. Just being the setting for various works is rather indiscriminate, especially a whole state (even a runt like Rhode Island). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm sympathetic to the concerns put forward in the nomination, and would have absolutely no objection to culling unreferenced/non-notable mentions. However, the presence of such entries does not require deletion of the whole list to address. Similarly the concern of scope could be addressed by setting inclusion criteria and does not require deletion. We have an awful lot of "Place" in popular culture articles - perhaps a centralized discussion on inclusion would be useful? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• If you look closely at those categories, you'll see that the ones that aren't umbrellas for subcategories are much more focused, e.g. individual cities, not something as nebulous as this one. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep This is a significant list of books, films, and TV shows set in Maine and should be kept for media studies students and researcher use. BrikDuk (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I think it could be kept if the inclusion requirements were better defined as "Maine as a location in fiction" and the tangent stuff like the 'character named Maine' example was removed, it would be more appropriate. The lede even says "has been the setting of", so I think some of the examples should be culled. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It used to be in Maine with a template pointing to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material. Rather than address that, the entire section was swept under the rug into this article (Special:Diff/732758211), and the notice was not transferred to the new article (Special:Permalink/732758165). This is a process that happens over and over, as you can see from User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing, and time and again the sweep-under-the-rug "in popular culture" articles come to AFD, as they have been for roughly a decade and a half now. Many get deleted. A few get refactored. Some go around a cycle. Benzedrine in popular culture (AfD discussion) is currently on its second loop. Uncle G (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This amounts to a collection of trivia. We need to stop such things in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - The article is essentially a list, and as it stands, it does not pass WP:LISTN. There are not really any valid reliable sources currently being used, and I did a couple of searches, and was not really able to find anything that covers the concept of Maine in pop culture as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 23:56, 15 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 merge to Pez. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Pez Card Game

Pez Card Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Was de-PRODded without explaination, lacks notability. I was unable to find any additional sources. As it stands, the article relies on a price guide for card games, a defunct PEZ fan wiki, and a brief entry on a toy museum's website (link 404's, see archive here). I don't think the sources currently on the article show notability. Waxworker (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep/merge There were journals which covered the torrent of CCGs including Inquest and Scrye. I expect that there are reviews to be found in such. In any case, there's an obvious alternative to deletion – merger to Pez – per the policy WP:PRESERVE. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Andrew Davidson, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES? Really? At least go the to the trouble of posting the usual GOOGLEHITS results, please. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge the one reliably referenced sentence (to Scrye) to Pez then redirect. Not much else we can do here unless someone finds better sources. The Scrye reference is not enough to know if the coverage was substantial, I used to read it back in the day - maybe the game got few pages of coverage, maybe one paragraph, maybe just an advertisement or a price list... And the reference suggest the latter, which would make it just a catalogue-like entry with no meaningful discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge the small bits of information from the one reliable source to the main Pez article. Even if the coverage in that publication is substantial, it is still only a singular source, and multiple reliable sources are generally needed to pass the WP:GNG as a stand alone article. Rorshacma (talk) 00:06, 16 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 19:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Medieval History Database

Medieval History Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Was de-PRODded without explaination, lacks notability. I was unable to find any additional sources, and the article as it stands relies on only the link to the site itself. Waxworker (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - I can't find any independent coverage either. Fails WP:NWEB/WP:GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

*Delete News coverage is not enough for this history database. Citterz (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment -- I have looked carefully at the website. There is no address; no indication of who is running it; nothing external to itself. I therefore cannot judge the merits of the website. I certainly cannot vote to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Totally murky, no sourcing--nothing. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Per norm. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:13, 15 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Methaqualone in popular culture

Methaqualone in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Excessive unreferenced pop culture trivia; while sources could likely be found for some things on the list, I think that Methaqualone doesn't have the same representation in media as something such as marijuana, which has a rich cultural impact. Waxworker (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge There's already a section on Methaqualone covering the cultural interest. It's crucial for a secondary source to say "Methaqualone plays an important part in X, and the significance is Y" for each entry, but as it stands it's a trivia list for all these 'trivial' mentions. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete basically a case of original research in which editors lobbed together every minor mention that could be found anywhere. The whole thing is a relic of the early wild west days of Wikipedia when there was no sense of notability or sourcing. There is no real sign of notability here at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - A list of trivia that does not contain any real reliable sources covering the topic. It is essentially a list, and as such, completely fails WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 00:08, 16 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 19:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Mizo Phyll

Mizo Phyll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Two references, one which barely demonstrates SIGCOV. I'm struggling to find any other good refs. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 17:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 17:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 17:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 17:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:GNG, non notable musician. -Xclusivzik (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Devokewater 22:07, 15 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 19:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Krishnendu Mukherjee

Krishnendu Mukherjee (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 Indian politician. Candidate for state parliament who has not been elected and so does not satisfy political notability. Nothing in this article even implies general notability. Article was moved from article space to draft space and back to article space, so now we are at AFD.

			Independent	Significant
1	Financial Express	Says that he represents BJP	Yes	No
2	Disney	Has error message	Yes	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, no indication of independent notability. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete — Aspiring to be a politician or being a mere potential candidate in no way satisfies WP:NPOL. Celestina007 (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails NPOL as well as GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, does not pass WP:NPOL, some WP:RS,, probable WP:BIO1E.

References

SailingInABathTub (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete fails NPOL and not notable outside of campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete an as yet unelected candidate for public office. We wait until after someone wins an election to create an article on them, except in super rare cases, which Mukherjee does not meet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 16 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 keep. I think there is now sufficient participation to conclude that the sources presented are sufficient for GNG Fenix down (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Kornelia Grosicka

Kornelia Grosicka (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:NFOOTY as the Ekstraliga is not fully-pro. While one might make a case for her passing WP:GNG, the sources I have found are of the level of "Kornelia Grosicka is the younger sister of Kamil Grosicki; she plays for this club and has scored two goals last week". Not enough for me. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I find it physically painful to vote keep for sport biographies which are being spammed on Wikipedia left and right, but I think this is enough for WP:GNG: [7], [8], [9]. Those are larger portals/newssites and if they decided to write about her, well, it is probably enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - this article posted yesterday in a Polish American newspaper looks like significant coverage, although not sure if it is WP:RS. Sources from Piotrus likely good enough on their own anyway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per sources above. The article needs improving, not deleting. Seany91 (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I created the article because of the significant media coverage from nearly all mainstream Polish outlets across the board but could not find a Wiki article about her anywhere, and so I added all the sources myself. She has a significant media presence it seems and therefore, aside from the footballing exploits, I do not see how she is any less notable than other influencers, youtubers or celebrities. Whilst I am aware of WP:CRYSTALBALL she seems to have rapidly gained notoriety in the league, perhaps because of focus due to her brother being a top footballer, but it looks to be deserved nonetheless. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - considering the sources identified by Piotrus for the subject meeting WP:GNG. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG which takes precedence over WP:FOOTY (aka WP:NFOOTY). Anyone citing that guideline in 2021 knows full well that it excludes the majority of top women's leagues around the world and is unreliable. Hmlarson (talk) 01:09, 17 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 no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. Relisting appears to be of no value, as the discussion has been dormant for over a week, despite a first relisting. BD2412 T 01:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Elías Rafn Ólafsson

Elías Rafn Ólafsson (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 player does not have any single appearance for a fully professional club or hasn't represented senior national team. Fails NFOOTBALL Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. I added a few sources in the article and there is plenty more in the Icelandic media, where he has been covered pretty well for the last few years. [10][11][12]. Alvaldi (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I wonder how the subject easily passes GNG. He has never played for any fully professional club hence fails WP:NFOOTBALL. So if we are considering general WP:GNG criteria to establish notability, lets analyse the sources you added.
• [13] this is about the player being affected by corona virus
• [14] this is a news about his contract extension
• [15] this is a piece from an interview with the player's coach regarding his performance
• [16] this is also the same. Analysing his performance
• [17] another piece from an interview.
• [18] interview

So the subject fails to have enough sigcov thus failing general notability criteria also. If we are keeping an article on the basis of these things, lot of footballers who fails NFOOTY would have got an independent article now. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

If several arcticles about the subject from multiple reliable national sources, including lengthy interviews about his career, news about his every move, performances, health status and more is not WP:SIGCOV in your books then what excactly is? The vast majority of footballers in the world do not get featured in their national media like this player does, including some who pass WP:FOOTBALL by the virtue of having played one or two games in a professional league. Alvaldi (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources you provided are just some incidential and trivial coverage. I dont know how an interview with this player's coach, who talks about his every move and news report about him getting a disease is giving sigcov to this player itself. Also just getting feautured in national media like you said is not enough for sigcov. Even if we combine these all sources, that is also not enough. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The explanation for trivial mentions is found in WP:GNG. The articles about him do not fall under trivial mentions. This is not a trivial mention. Neither is this. Or this. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There is also nothing in WP:GNG that says that interviews with a subject or with a third party about the subject is not part of WP:SIGCOV. And regarding the often mentioned article about him getting Covid-19, what non-notable player gets coverage about getting Covid-19 in every major media outlet in his country? Alvaldi (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

We had almost deleted all the similiar articles of footballers in the past. Since this is a footballer, its important that he must pass NFOOTBALL or he must have high significant coverage.Significant coverage in a general GNG criteria is that when a person does some notable work or a series of notable work over a period of years, independent media sources, such as newspapers, magazines etc, should provide detailed coverage about the subject in the form of biography article in detail talking about the subject, his life and his notable works. We would need these type of sources. As I can see there is nothing like that merits an article, even if combine all the sources. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 18:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to the Wikipedia guideline you are quoting and perhaps similar Afd discussions that ended up being deleted? Alvaldi (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You asked me to explain sigcov and I just did that here from my perspective. And I dont have time to dig up any past AFD's. I just said that because I have seen lof of articles like this getting deleted in the past. Regards and good luck with this AFD. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 23:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. None of the sources in the article or presented above are sufficient for GNG in my opinion, just standard footballer ones. GiantSnowman 20:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Weak keep Fails football notability guidelines for now, probably passes GNG given the coverage from two different countries. SportingFlyer T·C 00:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete the coverage is not indepth enough to actually lead to passing GNG, it is just routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep passes GNG. Tons of coverage by neutral third parties.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - the three sources cited by Alvaldi in a response above Fotbolti Visir MBL are enough for GNG. The sources are reliable and they provide more than a trivial mention. GNG is not a ridiculously high bar, we don't require for there to be enough sources that the article could be built into a GA. There are definitely enough sources going into depth to provide more than a simple stub. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Certainly looks like there might be enough for GNG here but there isn't a clear consensus one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:33, 10 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 redirect to List of Worcestershire County Cricket Club players. Plausible search term, WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Mehraj Ahmed

Mehraj Ahmed (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, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Worcestershire County Cricket Club players A few games, but I'm struggling to see anything significant. There may be some coverage in Wisden of his appearances. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable cricketer Rondolinda (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I tried to search for more information. The issue is this is a very common name, so I found name drops and non-reliable references on other Mehraj Ahmed's but nothing to indicate this cricket player is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 16 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Targeted killing of Hindu leaders in Tamilnadu

Targeted killing of Hindu leaders in Tamilnadu (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 much to state here, mostly original research and a POV fork of Operation Puttur. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: The title itself says its POV pushing. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: As mentioned by others, clearly POV pushing defcon5 (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Not original research. I have mentioned all reliable sources. I have even cited sources which cite the title of article -AppuduPappudu (talk) 17:35, 14 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 redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Manraj Ahluwalia

Manraj Ahluwalia (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, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players 14 FC matches, but all university or varsity matches. I'm not finding anything significant in a search. There may be wisden or newspaper coverage of his varsity matches, but I doubt enough for significant coverage. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable cricketer Rondolinda (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect The article is currently only sourced to the typical Cricket Archive/CricInfo WP:SPORTCRIT failure, and I don't see any additional coverage of him. Fine with a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 14:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:48, 14 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. No suitable list to redirect to at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Amar Rashid

Amar Rashid (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, fails WP:GNG.

Note: The Telegraph article is about his brother Adil Rashid. Störm (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Unicorns (cricket team) 9 List-A matches, but all for the recreational Unicorns side. There looks to be some coverage in match reports and other bits in relation to his brother, but I'm not sure there's anything significant there. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD, but would be nice for List of Unicorns List A players to be set up at some point. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable cricketer Rondolinda (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:54, 14 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 draftify. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Edwynn Houk Gallery

Edwynn Houk Gallery (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 was PRODded by me and deleted in December 2020, then recreated following User:Vh502's objection in February. Vh502 hasn't responded to my inquiry at their talk page or taken any steps to improve the article, and I can't see that anything's changed to indicate that the gallery's become notable since the article was deleted. As such, my PROD rationale still applies: Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for organisations, and appears to have been created and maintained mostly for promotional purposes. There's a certain amount of coverage of specific exhibitions held at the gallery, and some listings and the like, but I haven't been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Business exists but does not appear to meet WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• DeleteDraftify (as per below) Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. Notability is not inherited. If this gallery was notable in its own right, somebody would have written *about the gallery* and not about one of the exhibitions. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to draft. Having worked on a few articles about art galleries, it is apparent that some businesses denoted as art galleries are purely commercial entities directing their trade towards people looking for an aesthetically pleasing wall-hanging. Some, on the other hand, function more like small museums, and serve a more significant function for society and the arts. This one appears to tilt more towards the latter, but sources discussing the gallery itself rather than its exhibitions would be useful to demonstrate this point. I would move to draft to provide an opportunity for such sources to develop. BD2412 T 01:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify per BD2412 - it appears to have some coverage. I'd be willing to work on it after my exams. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify per someone above willing to work on what doesn't seem like an article suitable for mainspace just yet. jp×g 03:48, 21 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. Whether or not the subject passes NCRIC becomes moot when notability is challenged. SNGs serve as shortcuts to determine which subjects are likely to pass GNG, but once challenged, sources have to show that GNG actually is met. Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Salman Saeed

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Salman Saeed
• Articles for deletion/Salman Saeed (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Salman Saeed (cricketer)
• Articles for deletion/Salman Saeed (entrepreneur)

Salman Saeed (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) 14:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Has played 5 FC matches, 1 List-A match and 5 T20 matches, so more than the 10 recently suggested in recent talks on WP:Cricket. This seems to suggest he's still playing cricket at some level also and there seems to be some other coverage of his wedding if it's the same person. Played for multiple teams notably so there's no suitable WP:ATD really. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Rugbyfan22 Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete the key to notability is reliable sources not matches and those are lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep with 5 first-class matches and 5 top-class T20s, it is highly likely that there is coverage somewhere; this is exactly the type of case that WP:NCRIC is designed to pick up. With another four AfDs from the same nominator on the day of this nomination, I'm sceptical that the nominator has done sufficient searches, including across a range of non-English sources, to ascertain that there is no coverage. The nomination lacks any meaningful level of detail; there is no evidence of which sources User:Störm has checked, nor in which languages. This is a classic example of a kneejerk AfD via a handwave. AfDs with this lack of evidence of non-notability, when a notability guideline is passed, should simply be rejected en bloc as inappropriate. DevaCat1 (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This is the second time that this article has been recommended for deletion, having previously failed with a unanimous rejection at AfD. There is no explanation of what has changed since that decision was made- has he become less notable? Has there been a substantive change in notability guidelines? I would expect these questions to be pretty central to the consideration of the AfD. DevaCat1 (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• The argument put forward for deletion then was that the article should be about someone else; which is neither a valid reason for deletion (as noted in the speedy close) nor relevant here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• That's a reasonable explanation. But I think that it should have been in the AfD, explaining in detail why there was an AfD being presented and providing evidence of which searches had been done. The more detail that is in the AfD, the better quality debate can be had. DevaCat1 (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• As has been explained previously, there are no such requirements. No-one is badgering you to provide evidence of the existence of sources that you are speculating about. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Very weak keep. Not finding any significant coverage, only the usual wide-ranging databases and passing mentions in match reports. However, some of his performances, including being the highest wicket taker in the Ramadan T20 Cup, suggests that some likely exists, although that confidence is diminished by him being commonly described as "medium pace" (rather than fast-medium) and not having appeared in any T20s since then. Also only played the odd FC match for three different teams, so clearly going to struggle to reappear at the highest level in the new structure (6 FC teams, reduced from 16). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. 11 matches at the highest domestic level in Pakistan. I suggested 10 become the benchmark for passing cricketer notability, which seemed to be agreed by some as a sensible idea. However, players beyond 10 appearances are still being targeted for nomination. Slightly confused to be honest. StickyWicket (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep played multiple matches at top level, and was highest wicket taker in the Ramadan T20 Cup. Therefore, there are likely sources on him offline and/or not in English. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. These cricket player articles without references are getting ridiculous. WikiPedia is an encyclopedia not a website for sports fancruft.4meter4 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, which says sports database entries are not satisfactory to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• extremely week keep in lowercase letters per number of matches. Noah ^💬 18:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The current situation looks like the subject passes WP: NCRIC significantly enough to strongly believe that there exists sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT, which is the main concern for those who !voted delete, but hardly any sources apart from database sources in the article have been brought up so far to address the delete concerns.

I would like to see more effort than currently right now (which looks like pretty much none) in searching for sources on both the keep and delete side.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 18:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete he appears to share a name with an actor who also likes playing cricket but was born a decade before - it appears the actor was on a celebrity team which opened up the Gwadar Cricket Stadium. I can't find any coverage of the non-actor except for a single blurb about the U-19 team, though youth internationals are generally discouted by WP:YOUNGATH (at least in other sports.) All of the sources in the article fail WP:SPORTCRIT - even the Pakistani Cricket Site, which would probably be PRIMARY even if it were SIGCOV, are statistical entries. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep He has played 5 LA, 1 FA and 5 T20. absolutely notable cricketer. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 13:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Whether or not the subject passes NCRIC becomes moot when notability is challenged. SNGs serve as shortcuts to determine which subjects are likely to pass GNG, but once challenged, sources have to show that GNG actually is met. "Keep" !voters are invited to show which sources show that our notability criteria are met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment@Randykitty: the sources are absolutely reliable and they show clearly that the article meets notability criteria. The official website of PCB, Cricbuzz, CricketArchive and ESPN Cricinfo are used in this article and all these websites are reliable sources. And these sources show that the player played more than 10 domestic matches. The notability criteria for cricketers are the easiest and simplest among all other subjects. Any player playing any domestic match at highest level are considered notable. So, its tough for me to understand why this discussion is being prolonged, for about a month. A.A Prinon (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep According to WP:NCRICKET, any cricketer playing any International, FC, LA or T20 matches are considered notable. The cricketer played 5 FC matches, 1 LA match and 5 T20 matches. So, as he played domestic cricket at highest standard, he can be considered notable. A.A Prinon (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. A.A Prinon, NCRIC provides a weak, rebuttable presumption of meeting GNG, but when challenged GNG must be demonstrated. No sports-specific guidelines provide an avenue to notability outside of GNG. Per NSPORT:

  Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
  A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

  JoelleJay (talk) 16:42, 18 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 Speedy Deleted per WP:A9. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Melanchole

Melanchole (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 is an intriguing album: a home recording by a 15-year-old that appears to have very dedicated fans on social media, and I could see it becoming some kind of cult classic in years to come, especially if the artist continues to make music. But at present, this fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. It's almost entirely sourced to the artist's social media and record company, and there isn't any coverage of the album online from reliable sources. Rate Your Music is a user ratings website, QRates is a company that allows you press up your own vinyl records, and the "Yiss Beacon News" appears to be a South Korean blog that is still under construction, years after it was originally created (most of the sections still have their original placeholder text). Richard3120 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Clearly fails WP:NALBUM and doesn't meet WP:GNG. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 01:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - This looks more like fancruft than anything else, she does't even have her own article on wiki. The sources are all unreliable genius and bandcamp. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: this article has now been deleted via A9 speedy deletion, so this AfD is now redundant and can be closed. Richard3120 (talk) 01:31, 16 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 redirect to List of Cambridgeshire County Cricket Club List A players. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Saleem Mohammed

Saleem Mohammed (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, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Cambridgeshire County Cricket Club List A players 6 LA matches, but I'm not seeing anything other than match reports and a few other bits, nothing significant. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD, but should probably have been BOLDly redirected to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect per Rugbyfan22 DevaCat1 (talk) 17:30, 11 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Nadeem Mohammed

Nadeem Mohammed (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, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete 6 LA matches, but I'm only seeing match reports and a couple of other bits again, nothing significant. Played for two different minor List A sides so no real suitable redirect here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:10, 10 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 draftify. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Jasa Marga

Jasa Marga (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:NCORP Citterz (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment — @Citterz, your nom rationale is way too vague, could you expatiate and tell us why they fail NCORP? Perhaps they do, but you need to give us more than “Fails NCORP” Celestina007 (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, does seem to have plenty of Indonesian coverage https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Jasa+Marga&tbm=nws. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify, searches turned up enough to show notability, but the current article needs a lot of work. 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify, per Onel5969, would seem to be best as the article was recently created and has potential. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify, as the current state of this article is not fit for mainspace, but it could be expanded into something worthwhile. jp×g 03:59, 21 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 Speedy keep. The nominator clearly indicates that they are confused themselves and the decision and rationale to keep the article is overwhelming. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Gustavo S. Oderich

Gustavo S. Oderich (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 sure if this vascular and endovascular surgeon qualifies GNG Citterz (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep A notable vascular and endovascular surgeon who serves as a professor and chief of vascular and endovascular surgery, and is the director of the Advanced Endovascular Aortic Program at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center and Memorial Hermann Health System. He also served as chair of vascular and endovascular division at the Mayo Clinic which can also be counted towards his notability. Woofhilt (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep for a surgeon with 10k citations on GS and 20+ articles with 100 or more citations, this person is clearly notable per WP:NPROF#1. Please do WP:BEFORE, this is a pretty clear cut case. --hroest 19:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. 6577 citations on Scopus and an h-index of 42, and pretty clearly an academic so GNG is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: as per above citations. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:08, 11 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 keep. This particular discussion is going nowhere; anyone who is not a sock may feel free to renominate. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Nicolás Atanes

Nicolás Atanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notable mathematical activist who is trying to raise awareness about the importance of math. Citterz (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Update Nom: UnNotable mathematical activist who is trying to raise awareness about the importance of math. (I forget to add UN to avoid confusion) Citterz (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Citterz Sorry but this is not sufficiently explained which policy the subject does fail of - looks more like your personal opinion. Further it seems that you did not any Wikipedia:BEFORE search at all. Please make yourself comfortable with the AfD process. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford Just a typo mistake. I did WP:BEFORE clear and concise. Citterz (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

He's famous in Spain: many newspapers has covered his way, and he has appeared on TV magazines, too.. Please, don't remove him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remitbuber (talk • contribs) Remitbuber Can you first clear your COI? Please explain what connection you do have with this person?

• Comment. What exactly is the nominator's rationale for suggesting that the article be deleted? "Notable mathematical activist" sounds like a reason to keep the article, not to delete it. Nsk92 (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1 as the nominator has not advanced any argument for deletion or redirection. If the article should be deleted then a discussion should be started with a proper rationale. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: per WP:SK#1 CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, per WP:SK#1, as it is still unclear why we are here and why the article was nominated for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Since an updated nomination rationale has been provided, SK#1 probably no longer applies, although I am unsure to what extent we are supposed to entertain an AfD nomination from a confirmed sock. In any case, as MarkH21 notes below, the subject satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BIO for his social activism. Apart from sources mentioned by MarkH21, there are others, e.g. [19] and [20]. Nsk92 (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Bogus nomination. MarioGom (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. The first editor (Remitbuber) and the IP 90.167.181.254 are creating this biography in several languages and linking it in general articles like es:Matemáticas or es:Activismo, a clear case of cross-wiki spam. It has been deleted two times on es.wiki already. -sasha- (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Update Nom: UnNotable mathematical activist who is trying to raise awareness about the importance of math. (I forget to add UN to avoid confusion) Citterz (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: SK#1 is no longer valid with the later clarification by the nominator, but the nominator was later blocked and therefore should be discounted anyways. Independent of the validity of speedy keep criteria, the subject probably passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in Noticias de Navarra, El Mundo, and Diario Vasco. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. WP:SUSTAINED Weburbia (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Whatever do you mean, "brief"? We already have examples of in-depth coverage from February 2020[21], July 2020[22], August 2020[23], December 2020[24], December 2020 [25], and April 2021[26], spanning over a year. That's plenty WP:SUSTAINED, especially for the subject who is just 16 years old himself. Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: It turns out that the article creator Remitbuber changed the nomination text early on in this edit, which is what led to this whole hullabaloo (in addition to the nominator being a sock, of course). — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:31, 14 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 redirect to Let's Do It Now. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

What About Me (Haddaway song)

What About Me (Haddaway 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)

Non-notable song. I cannot find significant discussion of it in multiple reliable sources per WP:NSONG. ... discospinster _talk 16:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, no reliable sources found. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just to add that it peaked at number 24 in Austria and number 47 in Belguim. L to the K (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Charting doesn't make a song notable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Let's Do It Now: Barely found anything about the single aside from charting in at least 2 countries. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 17 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 redirect to Let's Do It Now. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Who Do You Love (Haddaway song)

Who Do You Love (Haddaway 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)

Non-notable song. I cannot find significant discussion of it in multiple reliable sources per WP:NSONG. ... discospinster _talk 16:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, no reliable sources found. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Let's Do It Now: Barely found anything about the single aside from charting in at least 2 countries. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 17 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Mushabad

Mushabad (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:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported 18 people in 8 families in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "040441" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:19, 10 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Mehragan, Hormozgan

Mehragan, Hormozgan (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:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "252082" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:14, 10 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Mehdilu

Mehdilu (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:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported 20 people in 6 families in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "234425" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:11, 10 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Langan, Iran

Langan, Iran (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:GEOLAND:

Its population has not been reported even in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "034652" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:07, 10 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Kachalabad, Ardabil

Kachalabad, Ardabil (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:GEOLAND:

Its population has not been reported even in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "025266" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:05, 10 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 redirect to Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis: A Practical Guide. Consensus was that the subject right now fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.

There also exists consensus that Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis: A Practical Guide is notable. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Vasiliy Krivtsov

Vasiliy Krivtsov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Poorly-sourced stub on a non-notable person (academic? business exec? not sure which). Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• This article is for a notable person in the field of Reliability Engineering. Wikipedia is lacking articles about reliability topics and notable contributors to the field. I have added reliable sources after your previous flag. I will be working on improving this article as well as other articles for major contributors in the reliability field. -- User:Sarouk7 (talk)

• comment simply because you feel that a field is not well represented in Wikipedia does not mean that it is a good idea to add people that may not be notable. His GS lists 1500 citations and a h index of 12 which is pretty low to pass WP:NPROF and clearly his movie roles are too minor to pass notability. Also testifying in front of congress, especially simply representing your company, will not pass WP:GNG. Sarouk7 please come up with a more substantial argument based on WP:GNG and WP:NPROF or I fear the article will get deleted. --hroest 16:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Can you move the page to draft rather than deleting it as I am working on the reference of this page? user:Sarouk7 17:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. He's got 264 citations total and an h-index of 9 on Scopus, unless there's something qualifying him for GNG he does not meet our notability standards. JoelleJay (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• With all due respect to the comments above, but I strongly disagree. The field of reliability is fairly new and the citation total and h-index need to be considered accordingly. How many universities in the USA offer a graduate degree in Reliability? THREE; UMD, UTK, and UCLA. The former one started by a professor from UMD anyway. Vasiliy got 1564 citation, but he is not totally academic, he works in the field, and as a reliability professional, I found his work in the statistical estimation procedures of the Generalized Renewal Process to be qualifying him for GNG. I have a goal and a mission to enhance the content of the reliability engineering on Wikipedia, which includes adding missing topics that don't exist (Failure Mode Conservation Principle, Generalized Renewal Pnon-parametric estimates), and introduce some of the contributors to the modern Reliability Engineering Vasiliy Krivstov, Wayne B. Nelson, Ali Moslih. Please consider not deleting the page. -- User:Sarouk7 (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Sarouk7, how about writing some articles on Enrico Zio, or David Coit, or Bojan Cukic, or Weichang Yeh? They are all highly cited (very surprised Zio doesn't have a page yet!) and publish in reliability engineering. JoelleJay (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Fix ping: User:Sarouk7 JoelleJay (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

User:JoelleJay, All great names, Enrico Zio has one of my favorite articles to model plant availability using Monte Carlo. I haven't edited on Wikipedia in almost 9 years, and I am just surprised by the resistance I am getting for that article. The reason I picked Vasiliy's page to be my first is my admiration of his accomplishments especially in the Firestone and Ford tire controversy. I read about his approach in making Firestone admit their manufacturing flows and making them recall 23 million tires in his book Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis. User:JoelleJay, are you a reliability professional?. -- User:Sarouk7 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Sarouk7 He can easily be notable in the field, and I have no doubt he is well-respected, but for the purposes of meeting Wikipedia's conception of academic notability his impact needs to be demonstrated with extremely high citations in his discipline, distinguished/named professorships, prestigious awards, or through meeting one of the other select criteria outlined in the above link. I do see his book has received a good number of citations (and it isn't indexed in Scopus or mathscinet, so it didn't factor into my previous comment), but he would need several such publications to verify his influence is well above that of the average professor in his field. I'm not in reliability engineering (although I have weak familiarity with bathtub models/failure prediction); I came across those names while assessing coauthor citation metrics of another subject who also unfortunately didn't have the requisite sourcing for WP. I'll ping @Russ Woodroofe:, who seems to have background in this topic and would have more insight on any particular achievements in it that might confer notability outside of citations. Best, JoelleJay (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

User:JoelleJay, thank you for bringing other Wikipedians who are experts in the subject. since your delete vote, the page went through some edits, would you be able to re-review it? --Sarouk7 (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sarouk, I'm still a little concerned that the book isn't attributable solely to him (his coauthor Modarres has much higher citation metrics (2136 total citations, h-index of 23), so it's hard to determine his contributions to it. Something I think the experienced mathematicians pinged (Russ and David) could help with is differentiating his impact in math (generally very low citations, but applied math/stats will be higher) from that in engineering (generally higher). For example, his citation metrics compared to those of his coauthors* aren't especially impressive, but if his notability is derived more from the low-citation field it's likely his incidental coauthorship with people from a high-citation field would obscure it, especially since low-citation fields are also low-collaboration. On the other hand, I only found 2 documents on mathscinet, so it's hard to argue in favor of that last point.

coauthor citation comparisons

Total citations: average: 2842, median: 763, Krivtsov: 742. h-index: avg: 19, med: 13, K: 10. Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 285, med: 166, K: 478 (generally Google Scholar citations are about 1/2 that of Scopus, so the book probably has around this many academic citations). 2nd: avg: 133, med: 68, K: 68. 3rd: avg: 114, med: 64, K: 52. 4th: avg: 98, med: 31, K: 31. 5th: avg: 76, med: 19, K: 26. There are many caveats to this analysis, the biggest being how small the sample size is; it's also greatly skewed by Saralees Nadarajah and Ilya Kolmanovsky, who seem to publish a lot in applied math/stats/engineering topics outside of reliability analysis and so might not be appropriate to compare. The numbers are also limited to documents indexed by Scopus, which normally don't include books -- I manually added 478 citations to Krivtsov, Kaminskiy, and Modarres and recalculated their h-indices, but it's likely his other coauthors also have unindexed publications that would raise the averages/medians.

JoelleJay (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

User:JoelleJay, I totally understand where you coming from, based on all the references you provided above, it makes sense. However, what I am emphasizing here is that Krivtsov is not solely academic like Modarras, he is academic but also a practitioner and consultant in the field. His contribution to the book was significantly obvious in chapters 4, 5, and 7, where the repairable systems were discussed using his unique approach of utilizing the Monte Carlo method to solve a model that was impossible to be solved by any means previous to that. In other chapters, his contributions were also noted in the practical examples after most of the topics which were are related to assembly line's conveyor failures, Data censoring from car failure databases, and automotive tire reliability. All those practical examples, I know for fact, are contributed by him, given his work at Ford Motor Company.

My point here is that citation can't really reflect his notability, but the weight of his contribution can be sensed in what he has accomplished in the field. I personally haven't had any means of estimating the effect of upgrading components in repairable systems until I read his paper | G1-Renewal Process as Repairable System Model. If you also look at Kaminskiy's citation it would be within the same ballpark given that Kaminskiy is also a practitioner not solely academic. --Sarouk7 (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's very difficult to make even the most obvious connection without explicit sourcing making that connection -- otherwise it is considered OR. This unfortunately means practitioners/consultants who may be very well-known and sought-after in a field are generally not considered notable by Wikipedia since it's less likely they'll have impactful academic citations or GNG-meeting coverage. The one thing I can think of that might help here is if we can demonstrate Krivtsov's academic publications have made their way into very widely-used manuals in the industry. I don't know if Google Scholar indexes such things, or if manuals even have reference sections, but if a technique that can be directly and unambiguously attributed to him is being implemented on a massive scale that could be an avenue to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:JoelleJay, To this point — Krivtsov's procedures are implemented in the Industry-Standard Reliability Software Packages. For instance, SAS - JMP implemented his Bayesian Algorithm, from his paper "A simple procedure for Bayesian estimation of the Weibull distribution" with 104 GS citations. Moreover, Reliasoft implemented his GRP Algorithm, originally described in his dissertation A Monte Carlo approach to modeling and estimation of the generalized renewal process in the repairable system with 49 GS citations. Note the SAS-JMP and Reliasoft are the industry-standard software in reliability engineering, each having tens of thousands of licenses. --Sarouk7 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Very weak keep, mostly for the book. The book has 950+ citations on GS, it also has at least a couple of reviews [27][28]. Very weak, because there's not so much else, and it borders on a WP:BLP1E; I think there's just enough in the way of other citations to save it. (I'm most impressed by the most impactful work in assessing WP:NPROF C1.) The primary-sourced stuff and CV-like list of pubs should be trimmed, but it's not looking so bad. Can any disinterested editors see the WSJ article? Thanks JoelleJay for the ping. David Eppstein might also be interested in this one, and I think has about as much expertise as me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Russ Woodroofe, thank you for your feedback, on the topic of WP:NPROF His paper | G1-Renewal Process as Repairable System Model, in my opinion, is a great approach in modeling repairable systems with “Better-than-new” restoration condition. That model is popularly used in the field, particularly, in the repairable system with upgraded components. Furthermore, this model was impossible to solve by any means even using La-Place transformation, but Krivstov’s work provided a possible solution throughout three different papers.

*A Monte Carlo Approach to Repairable System Reliability Analysis, 1998

*Approximate Solution to G-Renewal Equation with Underlying Weibull Distribution, 2012

*Estimation of G-Renewal Process Parameters as an Ill-Posed Inverse Problem, 2013

--Sarouk7 (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

While I find plausible that the paper you mention is good work, that evaluation probably falls under WP:OR. I trimmed the list of papers in the article down to the most highly cited. So far, the work you mention doesn't seem to have had so much of an impact, at least as measured by citations. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for refining the page to reflect the most credible papers. --Sarouk7 (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• delete / redirect to book, the book would fall under WP:BLP1E and the credit of the book has to be divided between three co-authors the papers listed above have low citations, thus making him fail WP:NPROF. This is pretty much confirmed by the analysis of JoelleJay, he is an average professor for his field. --hroest 00:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC) PS: added support to redirect to book. --hroest 00:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment that there seems to be an emerging consensus that the book is notable, although the author may or may not be. Thus, a sensible alternative to deletion would be to redirect to a stub about the book. "<title> is a textbook on techniques for analysis of reliability and risk," could suffice for the text of such a stub. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this would be reasonable. JoelleJay (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Russ Woodroofe, JoelleJay, I don't know the process of re-directing the page into a stub about the book. Can you assist with that? --Sarouk7 (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The closing admin will likely do so; otherwise, I'll do it after the AfD closes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Clarification First of all, thanks to all the Wikipedians who are taking the time to elaborate, I have always believed people like us who make Wikipedia great. I want to elaborate on a point that was brought up by many The citations. Please note that I created this page for Krivtsov for his contributions to the reliability engineering field, however, as a professor, in my opinion, Krivtsov is more than an average professor, which could be confirmed by his student's reviews. I am emphasizing his work and contribution in the field, which I have benefited from personally. That makes him more than an average professor in the field, and also higher than an average practitioner as well. His reliability models were utilized to support some serious decision-making (e.g. Firestone) at Ford. Some of his work is featured on Ford Media Site. Regarding citations, I would like to allude that, full-time professors generate lots of citations through their numerous graduate students, so I'm not sure how fair it is to compare a "playing coach" like Prof. Krivtsov with full-time academics. Krivtsov's procedures are implemented in the Industry-Standard Reliability Software Packages. For instance, SAS - JMP implemented his Bayesian Algorithm, from his paper "A simple procedure for Bayesian estimation of the Weibull distribution" with 104 GS citations. Moreover, Reliasoft implemented his GRP Algorithm, originally described in his dissertation A Monte Carlo approach to modeling and estimation of the generalized renewal process in the repairable system with 49 GS citations. --Sarouk7 (talk) --Sarouk7 (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Weak delete and/or redirect to book. The book appears to be notable. But he's only one of three authors and it's the only thing that stands out to distinguish him for scholarly research. I don't think one book (unless maybe one that is really famous outside its own topic and not merely notable) can be enough for WP:PROF#C1 or WP:AUTHOR. That leaves only WP:GNG-based notability for his work at Ford, and I don't really see the sourcing for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein, Ford is a private company, so the only publicly available sourcing that demonstrates Krivtsov work is:

• WSJ article and RESS paper — both referencing his work on the Ford-Firestone Controversy
• Ford Media Site that mentions one of his achievements
• ASME Congressional Briefing, in which he represented Ford.
• The methodology of his approach in solving the controversy is documented in his book Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis Chapter 7.1.6.1

Another possible venue to notability, according to User:JoelleJay, might be if "Krivtsov's academic publications have made their way into very widely-used manuals in the industry and got implemented on a massive scale". To that point — Krivtsov's procedures are implemented in the Industry-Standard Reliability Software Packages. For instance, SAS - JMP implemented his Bayesian Algorithm, from his paper "A simple procedure for Bayesian estimation of the Weibull distribution" with 104 GS citations. Moreover, Reliasoft implemented his GRP Algorithm, originally described in his dissertation A Monte Carlo approach to modeling and estimation of the generalized renewal process in the repairable system with 49 GS citations. SAS-JMP and Reliasoft are the industry-standard software in reliability engineering, each having tens of thousands of licenses. --Sarouk7 (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Sarouk7 adding one algorithm to a large software package, which isnt even notable by itself, does not make him notable. Many of the articles you listed are from his employers website and are thus not independent and him acting as a spokesperson/representing his employer also generally does not count towards notability. I am sorry, in my view there is just too little here for notability. --hroest 00:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

hroest, With all due respect, but SAS - JMP is one of the most notable software packages in the field of reliability, and having an algorithm-based one's dissertation is a great deal in the field. --Sarouk7 (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected, we do have an article on JMP (statistical software), but again the main creator of the software [[John Sall] is probably notable, but not each engineer or person who had their algorithm implemented. This page is one documenation page of JMP and the algorithm is part (a) of one paragraph, so maybe 5% of that page and that one documentation page itself describes only a small subset of the capabilities of JMP. So the contribution of the algorithm to JMP is very likely to be < 1% of the whole product. --hroest 11:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

hroest, I am not sure how you arrived at <1%, but, regardless, can we look at statistics from another perspective? Namely, what percent of Krivtsov's peers in industry/academia have their algorithm selected for a massive-scale implementation in Industry-Standard Software? My guess is that no more than 10%... and Krivtsov happens to be one of them. --Sarouk7 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect, weakly. (Struck earlier !vote.) I'm convinced by the argument that the subject is overshadowed on the book by better-known coauthors, and don't see any need to relist the discussion or otherwise drag this out. If he gets elected as IEEE fellow or similar, then we can consider an article then. Meanwhile, I'll go make a stub on the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  Textbook stub at Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis: A Practical Guide. Others having more experience with articles on books should feel free to tweak. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:41, 20 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 keep. BD2412 T 02:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

DXFK

DXFK (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 references found to indicate this station passes WP:BCAST, and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Bandera News Philippines. Google returns nothing suggesting WP:N. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BROADCAST. Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: The station is licensed by the NTC as it indicates an operator having a station. It was initially issued a PA per 2019 NTC Listing. It was only last year's listing when it was given a callsign. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:BCAST per Astig's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BCAST. jp×g 04:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BCAST, plus this can be expanded in the future anyway --K. Peake 08:02, 21 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Croatia at the 2002 FIFA World Cup

Croatia at the 2002 FIFA World Cup (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 already have Croatia at the FIFA World Cup, which covers this in enough detail. In addition to that, this article does not significantly expand upon the content already found at 2002 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 6, 2002 FIFA World Cup Group G and 2002 FIFA World Cup squads so, to me, this seems like unnecessary duplication of content. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I am also nominating these for the same reason:

Croatia at the 2006 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; Croatia at the FIFA World Cup is enough. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary content fork. GiantSnowman 14:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete both articles per nominator, unnecessary duplications JW 1961 ^Talk 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Merging this information back into Croatia at the World Cup would be unwieldy per WP:SPLIT. It's clearly notable and a valid content fork similar to a season article, just needs to be sourced better, and I don't see an issue with duplication considering this covers a specific topic of interest. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not really a notability issue but more a consistency issue and the deletion of these articles would follow previous consensus. Going through previous AfDs, I have found that there was quite strong consensus to delete Iran at the 1998 FIFA World Cup, Hungary at the 1966 FIFA World Cup and Iran at the 2006 FIFA World Cup, all of which were the same type of article as these ones. I'm also aware that the active Hungary AfD is also heading towards a delete consensus. A valid ATD might be to redirect to the relevant section of Croatia at the FIFA World Cup, which seems to be what has been done with the Iran ones post-AfD. The Croatia at the FIFA World Cup article seems totally sufficient to me, if people want to see more detailed coverage of the group stage matches, there is a link there that they can click. Adding a link to the qualifying group from that article would essentially eliminate any need for this article, in my view, as the exact same info would be only one click away. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Consistency doesn't matter when notability exists and the fork is valid. We have the parent article, both of these articles have additional information above and beyond what exists at the parent article, especially relating to qualifying, and we're losing information deleting them. I would understand the nomination if they were mere copy-pastes, but that's not the case: this will be a loss for anyone looking for specific Croatian coverage of these events in English (these types of articles exist in several different languages, so there's clearly an encyclopaedic element to them.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I've now merged/rewritten everything except the qualifying statistics table into the main article. Still object to what appears to be the inevitable deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 11:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - There doesn't need to be this much info. – PeeJay 22:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Agree, Croatia at the FIFA World Cup seems to cover well enough, that article could be sourced better know. Govvy (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Has anyone considered nominating the other articles in this series for deletion too? There are articles on the 1998, 2014 and 2018 World Cups that have apparently been overlooked. – PeeJay 16:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I again don't support deleting any of these, but the 1998 and 2018 Croatia World Cups were "especially" notable because of their third (in the first World Cup they were eligible for after independence) and second-placed finishes, for instance both articles could easily be supplemented with text from the French and German Wikipedia articles, while the 2014 article has prose to go with the statistics, unlike these two articles. I will fight for their inclusion. SportingFlyer T·C 16:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • You can !vote whatever way you like, no one is stopping you. I'm just wondering why the 2002 and 2006 articles were nominated but not the 1998, 2014 and 2018 ones. – PeeJay 16:30, 16 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Gardiner Henry Guion

Gardiner Henry Guion (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 as a simple captain. The article is in absolute shambles. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The sources cited here don't seem to provide significant coverage of the subject as required by the general notability guideline. For that matter, the article doesn't even clearly explain what was notable about the subject's naval career. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG, sources appear to be passing mentions then a long personal account and the subject's will. Page is a complete cluster of a geneology project. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

--HAM Weebers I understand your point of view.The page should be rewritten at least. Please give me some time to give a proper reaction. Hamweebers (talk) 11:36, 11 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Skullfunked

Skullfunked (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:BAND. I can't find a single piece of significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 06:35, 17 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 14:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Reclaim Radical - Radical versus Radicalised (film)

Reclaim Radical - Radical versus Radicalised (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)

Nothing in my WP:BEFORE search shows that this passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. It is a short video released by Leicester City Council but there is no significant analysis of it in reliable sources independent of the subject, as far as I can see. It does not meet any of our criteria for speedy deletion, hence AfD. I don't believe that draftifying would be appropriate unless sources showing significant coverage, reviews or accolades are located. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

For further clarity, the four sources, as I type this, that are in the article are all non-independent from Leicester City Council (see WP:IS), so do not establish GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom, as it fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as it meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:50, 11 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 redirect to Visvesvaraya Technological University. List of engineering colleges affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University is probably a better target, but it would be a supervote if closed as such. I will probably bring it to WP:RfD instead. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Anjuman Institute of Technology and Management

Anjuman Institute of Technology and Management (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 NSCHOOLS as there does not appear to be any RS during a BEFORE. This is an affiliated institution and not degree awarding and hence no inherent notability. VV 12:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 12:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. VV 12:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 12:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect To Visvesvaraya Technological University since the sources just aren't there to make this notable, but it's a still viable search term and redirects are cheap. So, there's zero reason not to redirect it as an alternative to deletion. Maybe someone can write a little thing about it in the Visvesvaraya Technological University article if it isn't mentioned there already. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

There are several thousand such institutions affiliated to universities across the country with a few hundred per university. I'm not sure making a list on the university page that is at least a hundred long is viable. VV 04:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

True. I'd be just as fine seeing it deleted, but just because there are a hundred or more out there doesn't mean every single would be listed in the other article. I doubt half of them would be. I don't think it being in the other article is a requirement for a redirect either. Although, I could be wrong on that. Like I said though, I'm as good with a delete outcome as anything else that isn't keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, Fails to satisfy WP:NSCHOOL which says "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." Chirota (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect per above: non-notable, WP:MILL school. jp×g 04:08, 21 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Slaughter House (band)

Slaughter House (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thrash metal band from the 90's. Unsourced since creation in 2007. They have released two albums on the notable Metal Blade Records label, and I have found a reliable source, however, I couldn't find anything else. The Allmusic biography page is blank, and the album review on the site is this: "This tough thrash from New Jersey has thought-provoking songs." This is nothing. Otherwise I only found the usual databases, retail sites, youtube, blogs, download and lyrics sites. I have several copies of Terrorizer from the 90s, and I did not found anything about Slaughter House in them. I am not sure about their notability, because I have found only one RS. Metal Blade is notable, of course, and the Rock Hard review is a very good start, but we need more reliable sources. Thoughts? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:51, 10 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 keep. Consensus is clear. Furthermore, the nominator is admonished to develop a better understanding of the relationship between speedy deletion, PROD, and AfD, and to be more careful in making assertions about the actions of other editors with respect to the use of these. BD2412 T 01:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Ninon

Ninon (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 hoax. I PRODDED but User:GB fan deprodded, so I apologise for wasting good faith editors time on this. Roxy the sycamore. wooF 11:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Roxy did not PROD the article. They added a speedy deletion tag with the rationale "Unreliable source, not WP:RS". I removed it because that is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. ~ GB fan 11:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Bull shit. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 11:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Roxy, can you please explain what part of my statement is "Bull shit"? Is it that you didn't add a speedy deletion tag with this edit that had an edit summary saying "Requesting speedy deletion with rationale "Unreliable source, not WP:RS"."? Or is it that I didn't remove that speedy deletion tag in this edit with an edit summary saying "decline speedy delete, not a valid speedy deletion criterion"? Both of those diffs agree with my statement. No where in the history of this article is there any edit where you added a PROD or that I removed one. ~ GB fan 13:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, just wondering if you could explain what is bull shit about my statement. ~ GB fan 00:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: It is apparent in the history of this article that User:GB fan is correct. This article was never PRODded. After speedy deletion was declined, nothing prevented you from adding a PROD tag. Removal of the former does nothing to preclude the latter. There was therefore no need for, as you have said, "wasting good faith editors time on this". BD2412 T 01:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. This article does not appear to be a hoax. As the sources at Google Books indicate, ninon is an actual type of fabric. Admittedly, I don't know enough about fabric to know whether the article accurately describes this fabric, and the main source cited has been removed from the article for being a "security risk" website. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You need to look harder, perhaps read one of your search results. The first mention of the word is from 1911. There is no etymology at all. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 14:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with requesting deletion. If the word was first mentioned in 1911, that means the fabric has been around for a while. This article doesn't discuss the etymology of the word, but I wouldn't expect it to because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In case anyone is interested, though, merriam-webster.com says the etymology is "probably from French Ninon, nickname for Anne", and the American Heritage Dictionary says exactly the same: "Prob. < Fr. Ninon, nickname for Anne." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't Merriam Webster say 1911? with a very dodgy ref? Can anybody find a pic of this fabric, anything to show that it exists as an entity, a thing, perhaps a roll or garment made with it. Not very likely for something that doesn't exist. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Merriam-Webster does say the first known use was in 1911. [29] Do you think they're lying about that? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

1911 eh. Funny that. Our article, such as it is, says that this alleged fabric is made from filament yarns. For the record, filament yarns weren't invented then. No I dont think thry're lying about it, they're just hopeless on this subject, like many of us. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 13:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Roxy, I don't know why you're being so aggressively wrong, but in addition to appearing in various print books, here's some pictures 1911, 1915, 1937 1950s, 1956, probably 1970s, current. And here's a sample of usage (including as voile Ninon) before 1911, because dictionaries are a lagging indicator: 1910 (quoted), 1907, 1904. This source suggests that 1904 is the first attested use, but here's 1903 and 1901. Not saying that it needs to be kept as an article, though -- merge to list would be a perfectly reasonable option. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

What a load of Non RS examples. You should be ashamed that you think we could hang a totally dubious article on the quality of those truly awful refs. I'm very dissappointed with everybody's Due Diligence work before commenting here. Oh well. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 13:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, per the google books results. All of the articles in this category are badly sourced, so there is no better article for re-direction (see Voile and Sheer fabric). SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Keep" per WP:HEY.RV (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Weak keep Not sure if this is a hoax, but I am not seeing any WP:SIGCOV. Which reliable source has as much as a paragraph about this? Please ping me if one exists so I can review it and reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Update: I was pinged with a source on my talkpage. I could only see a snippet view here, but it does suggest the topic is not a hoax and may be notable. Ping me with more sources and I will revise more vote further if they seem sufficient. Full view would be nice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I changed my vote to weak keep, the sources I was given on talk suggest this is a topic that is likely notable. It seems like a more encyclopedic topic than most fictional characters that have been giving me a headache those past few years. This is something that one would expect to find in a real, old-school pedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have no comment on the fate of this article, but I just want to add on that's it certainly is a real thing, and not a hoax. There are some book samples given here ([30]), and I obtained a full copy of the Pearson Textiles book, which places it as a "plain weave" and "lightweight and sheer" fabric comparable to Georgette, Voile, Organza, and Organdy. The book has about two paragraphs of description in total. — Goszei (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep in recognition of the improvement to the article that has taken place during this AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:27, 17 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 redirect to List of Bahawalpur cricketers. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Tauseef Bukhari

Tauseef Bukhari (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/coach, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Bahawalpur cricketers Has played 1 List-A game, but while there is a bit of coverage, it seems to be self-published by himself. I couldn't find anything else searching although sources may exist offline or in Pakistani or Hong Kong sources. 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. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no significant coverage so fails WP:GNG. This trumps the trivial (and debatable) pass of WP:NCRIC, by virtue of playing a single preliminary round match in which he contributed very little. This would also indicate that it is extremely unlikely there is any coverage to be found, and if there were any it would be for his later career as a coach/administrator. Redirect would be an accepted ATD, but it seems that this later career far exceeds that as a player, so redirecting to List of Bahawalpur cricketers seems undue and Hong Kong national under-19 cricket team does not exist. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Apart from playing in a List A match, according to the article, he went on to be the manager of a national U19 team and later became an umpire. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  None of which meets the criteria of any notability guideline. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep there are a few different sources cited in the article, along with the (marginal) pass of WP:NCRIC, providing enough room to consider that further work may lead to WP:GNG being met. I note that there is no reference at all by the nominator in the AfD of having done even trivial WP:BEFORE searches, let alone the searches in non-Anglophone sources which would be required for this subject (likely in both Urdu and Cantonese) in line with the approach at WP:ATHLETE. No evidence to support the assertion that that subject is "non-notable". I might change my view on this one if I felt that there the appropriate WP:BEFORE checks had been conducted and were referenced in the AfD to provide verifiability, but that's simply not the case here. DevaCat1 (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete While the coverage isn't just to the main cricket statistical databases, the two other sources either fail WP:SPORTCRIT (a list of umpired matches) or are PRIMARY (his coaching career.) The SNG pass is also exceptionally marginal - 1 List-A game, which aren't generally well-covered by media. SportingFlyer T·C 12:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep:, according to WP:NCRICKET, he qualifies for notability, having umpired at the International level. So, Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Whiteguru: NCRIC only includes senior cricket; as such he would not pass as an umpire, since U19 level is not included in this guideline. Also, NCRIC only offers a (weak) presumption of notability; ultimately GNG must be met. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Bahawalpur cricketers. His umpiring wasn't at FC/LA/T20 level. As a list exists, redirect would be most appropriate. StickyWicket (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect or Delete, per nom, Rugbyfan, Wjemather, SportingFlyer, and StickyWicket(!). JoelleJay (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Bahawalpur cricketers - very weak passing of NCRIC and not enough for GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 22 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 no consensus on WP:GNG after two relists. Number-wise, keep is at a slight advantage. Argument-wise, delete is slightly stronger.

To any future AfDs: Since nobody has mentioned it explicitly, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP may be relevant here. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

UK European Union Party

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/UK European Union Party
• Articles for deletion/UK European Union Party (2nd nomination)

UK European Union Party (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 gazetteer of political parties. Sources on this article only prove the party exists, not that they are notable, or have achieved anything notable. Previous AfD included valid delete votes and observations which have not been countered by subsequent editing. No notable election results. No evidence of notability prior to or following one single, unsuccessful election candidate. Fails GNG and ORG, and fails WP politics/politicians guideines too. doktorb _words^deeds 22:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 22:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 22:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: minor political party with no electoral representation. Fails to satisfy GNG criteria. The party also seems to be inactive, having not contested an election since June 2019. --RaviC (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - I would agree with all the comments above. A party that only stood in one by-election (where it polled a tiny total - 25 votes or 0.07 of those cast) is not going to be notable based on that alone. There is no sign of anything else that would make it notable such as extensive coverage. If it had run in other by-elections or fielded candidates at the 2019 United Kingdom general election, then there might be a case. However I wonder if more details about it from this page could be added to the 2019 Peterborough by-election article. Dunarc (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The party stood in the European elections and got >33000 votes. It did not only stand in one by-election. Bondegezou (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:GNG as it is the primary subject of articles from the Evening Standard and the New European, and is mentioned non-trivially in the i and BBC News as well. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the BBC one shows notability as it covers every by-election candidate in Peterborough including, independents, and standing at one by-election is not grounds for notability. I take the point about the other coverage, though that is in the context of the the European Election that the party contested, where it polled a negligible total (and only contested three electoral regions). Also other newspapers do not seem to have picked up on it. Thus to my mind it lacks sustained coverage and can be dealt with in the articles relating to the two elections it fought. That said if evidence of additional coverage can be found, then I would be happy to look again. Dunarc (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep primary subject coverage by two reliable sources and ancillary mentions in other reliable sources means it passes WP:GNG. Melmann 11:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep this party may be minor but it is notable due to what's happened with the UK and the EU --K. Peake 08:04, 21 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 speedy delete. WP:SNOW applies here. ... discospinster _talk 20:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Inglish Maker

Inglish Maker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested draftify - in my view, this would not pass WP:AfC. The three sources cited are nearly identical in terms of content despite being hosted on different websites. All are written by 'Digital Desk' rather than professional journalists. Furthermore, not even one of them shows significant coverage of Inglish Maker.

Nothing in my WP:BEFORE search shows strong coverage either so I believe that this fails WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete – borderline speedy deletion case. No secondary sources, the three sources that were in the article were based on the same press release, so I have removed two of them. Very clear that the person is not notable, and is trying to use Wikipedia as a marketing platform; doing charitable work and raising money for flood victims does not make a person notable if independent sources do not write about it. --bonadea contributions talk 11:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - I moved this to draft but the creator has some other wish. This page is far away from notability also a case of CSD G11, the way it was written.Sonofstar (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Nowhere near meeting notability criteria. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: vloggers have a higher mountain to climb for notability, I dare say. No GNG met here. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:26, 10 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 14:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nekonoshoben

Nekonoshoben (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 is a hoax originating in the "chefknives" reddit community. "Neko no shoben" means cat urine.
On 2020-02-12 06:44, reddit user NekoNoShoben was created and made one comment in r/chefknives two minutes later.
On the same day at 13:43, reddit user NekoNoNyo was created and made their first comment, also in r/chefknives twelve minutes later.
At 14:22, in a thread on r/chefknives about patinas, NekoNoNyo invited NekoNoShoben to explain the techique, which they did.
At 19:29, this article was created and at 20:35 it was posted on r/chefknifememes inviting users to contribute.
On 2020-02-14, TRPV4 registered on Wikipedia to make a few edits to this article.
On 2020-09-26 I proposed deletion as a hoax via WP:PROD.
On 2020-10-18 Lichessacc2, the original creator of the page requested an undeletion. Benjamin Schwarz (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment IMO, this is where Wikipedia's verifiability, notability etc. requirements fall down: an editor can create an article on pretty much anything they want, and as long as they quote only off-line sources — the more obscure the better — it becomes virtually impossible to disprove them. Sure, if you have the time and the inclination to visit a few major reference libraries you might be able get somewhere, but who is going to do that, especially within the week or so that an AfD stays open? And even then, it would be just one editor's say-so. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I can't prove beyond doubt that this is a hoax, but balance of probabilities does suggest that. Conversely, I also can't verify the offline sources, and hence for me this fails WP:V. (And please, don't anyone point out that offline sources are also acceptable — I know that full well; I'm saying that I cannot verify this.) For the same reason, it also could fail WP:OR (note that much of the article contents are unsupported by citations, so there's no knowing where they came from), and possibly other things as well. (Further factors suggesting this may be dodgy: the article has no incoming or inter-language links, so it really is a lone orphan. Odd, that. Oh, I forget — it's a very 'secretive' method, right.) Now, if I could find even one reliable online source to corroborate at least some of this, I might err on the side of keeping it, but as I can't, I think the safe and sensible option is to delete. I for one would rather miss out on ten articles on genuine, verifiable topics, than include even one on a hoax. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I checked the first source cited and could find no reference to this technique. The page cited is about forging steel swords, and has no relation with anything said about the article. While I don't have access to the second source, looking at the Amazon listing & reviews shows it's about knife sharpening, and none of the reviews mention this technique. Jumpytoo Talk 21:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, as a WP:HOAX created by a WP:SPA. Cat urine has a normal ph of 6-6.5, it’s no more acidic than milk. How can you read “traditional methods of stabilization include immersion into watermelon” and think that this is real? SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as evident hoax. I also have a copy of the first source; as Jumpytoo said, there's nothing on p. 145 or in the rest of the book about this. This concept is already hard-to-believe on its face, and given the evidence provided in the nom I find it hard to believe this is anything but a hoax. — Goszei (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I can't say I'm happy this was undeleted, although I also suspect any policy that would prevent its undeletion would catch too many false positives. It's a relatively sophisticated hoax, excluding the part where it was bragged about on a meme subreddit. Vaticidalprophet 03:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SNOW. To be honest I'd like to keep it because it's hilarious, but we really can't make exceptions to the no hoax rule. Tercer (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom, a "good" WP:HOAX created by a WP:SPA CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:41, 15 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Dion Bates

Dion Bates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

He has some coverage, some success, but doesn't appear to meet WP:N or even be a pro player. Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep 31 appearances in the Mitre 10 Cup so passes WP:NRU. Then in terms of GNG in just a simple search I've found this, this and then there's plenty of other coverage in match reports and squad announcements. I imagine there would be more in a more detailed search. I'll update the article with this information as it shows no appearances currently. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Withdraw nom per great work above. Boleyn (talk) 22:13, 11 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Petra Seeger

Petra Seeger (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 couldn't find the reliable coverage to show she meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can get this resolved. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I added another source. It seems that she is known for her film, In Search of Memory (redlink) on the neuroscientist Eric Kandel. I found an article in the journal, Nature, and added it to the article. If nothing else shows up in the way of reliable sources, a few sentences about her film on him could be added to the Eric Kandel article (redirect to the filmography section of his article?). Netherzone (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: coverage of her film suggests that she meets criterion #4 of WP:FILMMAKER but it's doubtful we should have an article on her if there are no reliable biographical sources. I searched and found this: a fairly comprehensive bio from a reliable source. (You can tell the website is reliable since it's funded by the German federal government and the state of Hesse.) I'll add some content from the new source to the article. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Netherzone after new source was found and integrated into article. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Modussiccandi, good find. I just re-read WP:FILMMAKER criteria 4, and I think more than one review would be needed to meet that SNG per the wording "significant critical attention". I'm guessing there are more reviews out there. Perhaps for other films as well? Another avenue to research is whether her films are in any museum collections. Netherzone (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Netherzone The same website says that the film was given the "Best Documentary" award at the 2010 Bavarian Film Awards. That could be viewed as constituting the "won significant critical attention" bit of #4. I've also found another review (you need to click on the tab entitled 'Jury Bewertung' to see the full review), from the Deutsche Film- und Medienbewertung (FBW). Overall, I think this is enough to show she meets WP:FILMMAKER. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I just found a museum collection, the U.S. Holocaust Museum[31]. One more collection will do it, since "several" means two or more (at least that is how the criteria for WP:NARTIST has been interpreted for years. Also found this coverage in what looks like a book chapter/journal article.[32] Netherzone (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

And a New York Times review:[33] Netherzone (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for finding all these sources. Don't worry if you don't find another collection. I think we've already established that she meets WP:ARTIST: you added the reviews in Nature and NYT, and I found the review by Deutsche Film- und Medienbewertung (FBW). Together they satisfy the multiple review requirement. One could even argue that she meets WP:ANYBIO because she's won an award at the notable Bavarian Film Awards. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - After doing a WP:BEFORE search, it's clear that she is notable; between the museum collection, multiple reviews of her work, extensive screening history and a notable award, she meets WP:FILMMAKER/[{WP:NARTIST]]. I am guessing there is more to find as well, as Modussiccandi and I did not have to search long or deeply to find these sources, some of which have been added to the article. Netherzone (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as noted above and per WP:FILMMAKER, because she has created [...] a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject [...] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. e.g. New York Times, CS Monitor, Variety, Boston Globe. Beccaynr (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. Boleyn (talk) 20:28, 11 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Open House Arts Collective

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Open House Arts Collective
• Articles for deletion/Open House Arts Collective (2nd nomination)

Open House Arts Collective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Please see the many good points made in the 2009 AfD - our criteria has changed significantly since then, however. This has been in CAT:NN for 12 years - I am hoping we can now get a resolution. There doesn't appear to be the coverage available to show notability. Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• That was a fun earlier internet AfD. How dare we ask readers to open another tab!? Never mind interviews themselves not being objective. Delete, I tried to improve this when I was working through the same backlog that nom is, and my conclusion was it was a shortlived organization. No coverage to meet WP:ORG. StarM 14:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete the collective stopped updating their website/blog sometime around 2012 completely abandoned it by 2014. Ohfest appears to have stopped around 2011. It doesn't appear to have made much an an impact during its brief existence. Vexations (talk) 16:33, 11 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Mintek

Mintek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Bringing to AfD after 12 years in CAT:NN and tagging user:Ravenswing and user:196.24.216.2. There is some coverage, but I'm not sure if it is enough. Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Last year, I sought to redirect this twice to the appropriate government ministry, and was reverted by an anon IP. Whatever the notional importance of this sub-agency might be, there has been no evidence of significant coverage of the subject, now, or at any time in the twelve years this stub has been dangling around. To quote from WP:ORGSIG:

  No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is ... If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists ... "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it.

  Period. There is no carveout for governmental sub-agencies. There is no exception based on alleged budget. The only sources that have come up are primary or namedrops, and neither can be used to support notability. I believe a redirect remains appropriate, but I'll be happy with a deletion as well. An article going twelve years without reliable sourcing is prima facie evidence that no one cares about the subject enough to source it properly, and never will. Ravenswing 12:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC).

The arrogance of wikipedia 'editors' never ceases to astound. There is literally a book on the subject (references to this have been stealthily deleted by such editors through the years: The story of Mintek, 1934-1984 Hardcover – January 1, 1985 by Jack Levin 196.24.216.2 (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Not notable subject. Sonofstar (talk) 19:30, 17 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 keep. In this case, arguments based on sources are much more convincing comparing to assertions of non-notability with little elaboration. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sneh Gupta

Sneh Gupta (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 independent reliable sources to establish notability. Fails both NACTOR and GNG. Also got nothing on doing a WP:Before Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom : fails WP:NACTOR. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk — Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  Striking out the vote of sock. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Has been updated with information about early life. Published sources have been included as references which should fit the relevant criteria. Originally, the page was requested for a speedy deletion but kept due to showing significance. Surely, someone with a varied career like gameshow hostess (on Sale of the Century), model, actress and now charity worker shows some sort of nobility? The talk page has these further sources which could be added for extra assistance:
  • Mandy.com - representation with an agents company including education/qualifications, a brief biography and information about her company Sneh Productions
  • Sneh Productions - Information about her and TV company
  • iDiva - about charity work with SKSN, IMAGE and Indiability
  • Twitter - probably not considered a reliable source but her official account for anyone interested
  • India Appeal - how she helps disadvantaged students
• Others may be able to find more sources to help. 2A00:23C6:D884:6401:35C1:4E76:A1A0:3B8E (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable either as an author, actor or in professional capacity. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACTOR, WP:SIGCOV RationalPuff (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep due to the entry in Donnell, Alison (2002). Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture. Routledge. p. 132. ISBN 9780415262002., which indicates support for WP:NACTOR notability (Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows); Gupta's Executive Director profile also suggests more sources may WP:NEXIST to support WP:FILMMAKER notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC) update !vote per WP:HEY by BennyOnTheLoose and the support provided for WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep a search of newspaper archives reveals some articles specifically about Gupta, e.g. "Feathers will fly". Daily Mirror. 23 September 1978; "Change of direction". Reading Evening Post. 7 October 1989; West, Roy (3 January 1984). "The Raj and the motel princess". Liverpool Echo. pp. 6–7; as well as there being passing coverage such as in Roy, Amit (7 May 1989). "Eastern promise wasted - Asian actresses". The Sunday Times. I've also added in some references for credits that are just incidental mentions to support the inclusion of various TV programmes in the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've obtained the Doctor Who Magazine source. Coverage of Gupta is about 2/3 of a full page, featuring background about her career as well as her comments on the role in Dr Who. Bolsters the case for GNG being met, I believe. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep in accordance with source analysis by BennyOnTheLoose.--Chuka Chief_talk 14:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Shital K Upare

Shital K Upare (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 non notable model and actress. The subject is only the second runner up of a beauty contest, which does not have that much significance. She also has only a single notable role in a movie so far thus failing NACTOR along with NMODEL. Most of the sources provided are unrelible and some gives only routine or incidential coverage. The subject has no sigcov thus failing GNG also. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Fails GNG and also fails NACTOR. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 15:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

*Delete Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 00:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Strike sock !vote Beccaynr (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete WP:TOOSOON. May become notable later in future when she has done more significant roles that received more coverage. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. Sonofstar (talk) 18:02, 17 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 keep. There is consensus that the subject is notable under WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Khin Khin Gyi

Khin Khin Gyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There are no reliable sources giving enough coverage to the subject. Doing a WP:Before gave me [34]. Fails GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

weak keep while not notable as a spokesperson alone, she was included here in the Ten Myanmar Women Who Inspired Us in 2020 which seems to pass the bar of GNG, especially for a country where sourcing is probably more difficult. --hroest 13:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:NPOL as director (head) of Myanmar 's Central Epidemiology Unit (CEU), is the National Focal Point (NFP) for the communicable disease surveillance and response in collaboration with health professionals and related departments and organizations. She also played major role in COVID-19 disease control in Myanmar. Moreover, as she held senior role in MOH, she is responsible for verifying all information about the Covid-19 incident in Myanmar. A Google News search for her Burmese name with position "ဒေါက်တာ ခင်ခင်ကြီး" or [35] shows plenty of coverage. 185.205.142.79 (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep clealy passes WP:NPOL as the head of the national level gov organization. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:NPOL. Sonofstar (talk) 18:01, 17 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with only keep !votes. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Investment Corporation of Dubai

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Investment Corporation of Dubai
• Articles for deletion/Investment Corporation of Dubai (2nd nomination)

Investment Corporation of Dubai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Investment company does not meet notability standards, as per previous AfD. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Sovereign wealth funds may not be inherently notable (?), but one of the top ten funds in the world is bound to have enough RS sigcov to establish notability, even if the sources currently cited don't suffice (and I'm not saying that they don't — look pretty good to me). And no, this isn't an argument for inheritability etc., merely saying that a BEFORE would have surely uncovered more and better refs. Granted, the article is written in a promotional style with peacockery etc. and hence needs a thorough weeding, but I say let's keep and improve. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: As per reasoning laid out by DoubleGrazing. Being one among the ten largest Sovereign wealth funds in the world[36] and the fifth largest fund in the Middle east[37] alone makes it notable in my opinion. I see enough coverage in reliable sources in the article itself and there are plenty more online. The article needs to be edited for an encyclopedic tone in some places though. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep a notable sovereign wealth fund --Devokewater 22:10, 15 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

ICDSoft

ICDSoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Web hosting company does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for a company in this industry. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as A7/G11, purely promotional piece with no encyclopaedic content, on a non-notable commercial entity. But seeing as we're here at AfD, regular velocity delete will suffice. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• 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⁺⁺ 20:23, 17 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 no consensus due to the SPI blocking of the nom. No prejudice to a renomination by a different editor. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Shiju Nambyath

Shiju Nambyath (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 reliable sources found. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Tried a WP:Before in Malayalam also [38] and couldnt find anything useful. Fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 08:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
•  Note: The nom is a blocked sockpuppet of Phoenix man (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man/Archive. --Blablubbs|talk 12:53, 12 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nischal Shetty

Nischal Shetty (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 business executive, fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. The majority of the sources are not about the person in question, they cover his various initiatives etc. (and of course help provide plenty-looking references). Some sources don't mention him at all, others only in passing; the two exceptions are the Mint and Podium ones, but both are interviews. I also don't think being included on the (2014) "Forbes India 30 Under 30" list counts for much. Earlier A7 speedy was rejected on the basis that importance was now being asserted; fine, it may be, but I still don't think notability has been established. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete:. As per nom. Could not find any single sources giving him in depth coverage. Clearly fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 03:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNGSonofstar (talk) 17:40, 17 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 14:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Shariq Hassan

Shariq Hassan (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 WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 05:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: This article provides key information about the individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.86.194 (talk • contribs)
• Delete: Only had a single role in movies so far. Fails NACTOR as well as GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: I agree with above. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan (3rd nomination) 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:690E:881A:67B:3FF1 (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NACTOR. Dan arndt (talk) 07:01, 13 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

St. John's Episcopal School

St. John's Episcopal School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Small private K through 8th grade school. Unsourced since 2006. One news article talks about it's closure a few years ago, but doesn't elaborate on the school itself. Doesn't seem to have a school district to merge/redirect to. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it would need a "clear claim to notability", but searches don't bring up anything, and the article doesn't give me anything to go on unless being 60 years old qualifies. A lot of search hits to unrelated schools of similar names. Estheim (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• delete I found some sources about other schools like the nominator says are out there, but nothing about this particular one. Let alone anything in-depth that would help it to be notable enough for either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Which isn't surprising considering it's a K-8th grade school. That said, considering how old it is there might be offline sources that we just aren't privy to. I don't think other voters should use the potential of "offline sources" as a keep excuse. Since it's just as (or highly) likely none exist, offline or otherwise, and the burden is still on the "voters" to "prove" notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Super strong delete "Considering how old it is" that is just rubbish claims. This sub-high school was founded in 1951. The saying is in the US 100 years is a long time and in Brittain 100 miles is a long way, but there is no way an institutions that is 70 years old gets a pass from needing to have indepth sources just because of how long it has existed. Down that path lies madness. By that standard we would create an article on Emerson Elementary School in Detroit opened in 1948 as one of the last neighborhood elementaries to be opened in the city. Down that path lies madness, and we need to avoid it like the plague it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - name too COMMONPLACE to redirect. 8.48.2.14 (talk) 21:01, 14 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 redirect to List of DC Comics characters: F. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Fisherman (comics)

Fisherman (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another bad disamig (the name of several supervillains... neither of which appear notable). PRODed a while ago 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.". PROD removed with no meaningful rationale, so here we go. If deleted, soft deletion by redirecting to List of Aquaman enemies might be fine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to list of Aquaman enemies. Don't see sources that would establish notability. The villains list is a better option than deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to List of DC Comics characters: F in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect - Topic lacks sources to meet the notability threshold. TTN (talk) 16:20, 17 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. Fenix down (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hungary at the 1978 FIFA World Cup

Hungary at the 1978 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Why is this a separate article to the Hungary at the FIFA World Cup which has this information bar the qualifying area. Also possibly fails WP:GNG. I would also like to nominate these articles for the same reason.

• Hungary at the 1982 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hungary at the 1986 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HawkAussie (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: What about the other articles in this template Template:Countries at the FIFA World Cup by year then ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migrant (talk • contribs)

@Migrant: what about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS then? GiantSnowman 09:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't think these kind of articles are needed; content can be adequately covered at the World Cup page / national team history page. GiantSnowman 09:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment: @GiantSnowman: What's the difference in type of article-subject with this article (Brazil at the 1970 FIFA World Cup) then ? Which is also linked in the above-linked template. If you allow one you should allow the other, unless you only allow winners team-article ? And shouldn't the other articles also be notified/listed here if they are subject of this discussion ? Best regards Migrant (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

For the second time - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 09:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

To be more specific than GiantSnowman, who just posted a link without explaining why it applied, the fact that a handful of individual countries at individual World Cups have articles does not mean every country at every World Cup should, and indeed there areonly two or three nations per World Cup listed at that template. If every single nation that qualified for every World Cup had an article like this, it would be different (though undoubtedly some would still misapply OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) but that's not where we are. Smartyllama (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Why are these countries separated by year? Unless something notable (e.g. world record or doping scandal) occurs on a given year, there really shouldn’t be these kinds of articles, they can be adequately explained on the “Country at the FIFA World Cup” page. JayPlaysStuff (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete all - in each case the content is already covered better elsewhere. Some of the other ones probably need to be deleted too. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep all – by precedense of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazil at the 2006 FIFA World Cup-discussion. Best regards Migrant (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That was THIRTEEN YEARS ago. Consensus can change,and clearly has given that far more recent AfDs on similar articles have resulted in delete outcomes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Although I'm normally loathe to see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST applied in the matter it is here, it's not as if every single other nation which ever qualified for a World Cup has an article for that year. It's normally only a couple per tournament that are the most notable and get over the GNG hump. Brazil does that, there may be one or two other teams per tournament which do, but not Hungary. Smartyllama (talk) 15:14, 12 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Blood Donor Society PUCIT

Blood Donor Society PUCIT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Did a WP:Before and found that this [39] is the only source giving an incidential coverage about a blood donation camp they organised. Others are their own website and some blogs. No significant coverage and fails WP:ORG as well as GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. A search for this organization failed to yield coverage, much less significant coverage. ✗plicit 03:37, 22 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 redirect to List of Major League Baseball no-hitters#San Diego Padres. There is certainly no consensus to keep this.

However, there is a split between merging to List of San Diego Padres team records and redirect to List of Major League Baseball no-hitters#San Diego Padres as an WP:ATD.

Number-wise, redirection is at a slight advantage. Reading the elaboration of merge !votes (only one has it), those !votes should read more like "merge to preserve the information somewhere", so they would be compatible to a redirect to a list article with the information already. In addition, after the first redirect suggestion, no more merge suggestions have appeared, so it looks like redirection is the better WP:ATD when one is given the choice between merging and redirection.

If the information on the target article is moved, the redirection target can certainly be changed. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

List of San Diego Padres no-hitters

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of San Diego Padres no-hitters
• Articles for deletion/List of San Diego Padres no-hitters (2nd nomination)

List of San Diego Padres no-hitters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tampa Bay Rays no-hitters, a list of one item is deemed not worthy of a stand-alone article. Canuck^{89 (Speak with me)} 03:19, April 10, 2021 (UTC) 03:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:LISTN, as one item is neither a group nor set.—Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to List of San Diego Padres team records. Seems logical to me to keep this around somewhere, but a one-item list is not a proper list. Hog Farm _Talk 04:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge per Hog Farm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. One list entry is not a list. Ajf773 (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge per Hog Farm. SportingFlyer T·C 12:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment re: potential merge Appreciate attempt to WP:PRESERVE, but merging to List of San Diego Padres team records is awkward. What is the record? A convoluted "Fewest hits allowed, complete game"? Even if the record is listed, it's trivial to merge in the current table, when only the record holder, Musgrove, is relevant. No similar precedent with List of Tampa Bay Rays no-hitters or any of the other similar page deleted in the last RfD.—Bagumba (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This page is unsourced, and not worth merging. It seems to me useful prose should be placed at History of the San Diego Padres, where the prior drought can be put in context and the near misses mentioned. Some history is in this New York Times article. Or just create San Diego Padres no-hitters, not a list.—Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_Major_League_Baseball_no-hitters#San Diego Padres -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_Major_League_Baseball_no-hitters#San Diego Padres, where it is already covered. The merge, while a good suggestion, is not necessary since the information already exists elsewhere. No need for a single entry list. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  It seems undue that there is a dedicated section List_of_Major_League_Baseball_no-hitters#Teams_with_only_a_single_no–hitter, where San Diego is a subsection. Why single out teams with only one no-hitter when the the general MLB list is already sortable by team?—Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Bagumba:, feel free to raise that issue on the talk page for that article. This AfD is not the appropriate venue for that. If the information is going to be there, I think a redirect is appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Major League Baseball no-hitters#San Diego Padres, where that information already appears. If people think that information violates WP:UNDUE, they can take it up at the talk page for that article, not at this AfD. If the information is going to stay there, this should redirect there (as is done for the Rays page the nominator referred to.) (edit: that parenthetical part is incorrect, the template of no-hitters by team links to that page directly. This does not change my opinion.) If consensus at that article is to delete the information, I would reconsider my !vote but this is not the appropriate venue to discuss that, and if it's there, a redirect is appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Page is standard for MLB franchises and will grow in time. Sources should be added, but feels unproductive to delete in light of other similar pages that clearly meet the standard. Baseballtom (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Although you are confident it will "grow in time", it took over 50 years for the Padres to record their first no-hitter, who's to say it won't take as long for a second to occur, leaving this as a list of one item for decades.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete- Fails LISTN. Although we shouldn't even need to cite policy for this one, one entry is not a list by definition.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Major League Baseball no-hitters#San Diego Padres. I'm pleased for them. But it's still a list of one. --Jameboy (talk) 18:20, 20 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 merge to Cultural impact of Madonna. Consensus is that the topic covered merits inclusion, however the list itself does not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

List of artists influenced by Madonna

List of artists influenced by Madonna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Basically just an arbitrary list. Are we counting people who have worn her conical bra? Or who remixed her tracks? This could be turned into an article titled "Madonna's influence on popular culture" or something like that but this list is just ridiculous. Noah ^💬 20:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 20:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment:This list is about people from/in the entertainment industry influenced by Madonna, with commentaries (from others or by them) on that and examples. Not those who "have worn her conical bra" or "remixed her tracks". I know, is not the perfect list and grammar can be improved but mostly both text and examples are supported by reliable sources (and those who aren't can be replaced or re-verify the poorly additions). The list doesn't need be neither renamed because her influence on others (entertainers) is a topic developed extensively not only by pundits but by intellectuals. All here is in those context and IMHO meets many requirements for an existence beyond the concern expressed by nominator. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Just commenting that the article Cultural impact of Madonna exists. MarkZusab (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

True. But if this a suggestion for merge content, I would oppose to that idea. Because that article is mostly about her not "her on others". And considering the Cultural impact of Madonna could be expanded with more academic topics such as "Globalization", "Race", "Gender", "Multiculturalism" etc (I do not doubt I could help to develop those topics) with reviews from authorities authors. Also, I'm not sure if the nominator is aware that there is others "list of artists influenced by" (e,g Michael Jackson) to have a general picture on these type of lists. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Second comment to list existing articles of the same type:

• List of artists influenced by Beyoncé
• List of artists influenced by Christina Aguilera
• List of artists influenced by Eminem
• List of artists influenced by Janet Jackson
• List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson
• List of celebrities influenced by Selena

MarkZusab (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing a complete list. I noticed nominator was cited in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk in regards the similar list for Taylor Swift. I would like hear back something from him and not see this like a cherry-pick nomination of only one list (Madonna). Although all these lists contains errors and I know other users cited WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS to justify the creation of new lists, in defense of artists such as Michael Jackson or Madonna, they are constantly cited by performers around the world as an influence no matters the decade. That's an important part of their literature and considering their main articles are more than extensive, this type of lists brings readers a general perspective. In the very near future, I'll work to find better sources or remove poorly additions if this help. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I note the extra lists in the comment by MarkZusab. Considering that no one article on Wikipedia sets a precedent for any other aticle, and that listing of articles for comparison purposes at AfD is discouraged, have they been brought here as additions to this AfD? If so they are not corectly nominated, neither here, nor in the individual articles. If not, then what is the purpose of bringing them here, please? Fiddle Faddle 08:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I see a kinda bad rationale from the nominator, as none of the content on that page talking about cone bra or remixes of her songs, not even a single mention. I don't know whether he/she just being ironic tho. I suggest to make it a WP:MULTIAFD that encompases all of those lists as pointed out by MarkZusab above. I mean, if we want to delete this topic for the biggest woman in music industry, then I just don't see why more obscure names such as Aguilera or Selena deserve one. Let the community decide once for all. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I could fails under WP:OTHERSTUFFS but seems pretty unlikely overlook the rest of the lists with massive maintaince edits. After all, if we're talking about this like an "arbitrary list", the rest of them have the same format: lists and lists of examples. Comparison with avanced texts like "Cultural impact of" are more disputable. In her case I know there are poorly additions, and that's also happens because everyone can edit Wikipedia but problems like this can't overshadow the subject IMHO, and set a template could help to warn these issues like the MJ-list beyond a bureaucratic step. Anyway, I'll respect final results and if a WP:MULTIAFD is open, is more understandable. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• This article is more complex than a simple list. I do not see overall deletion or retention as a valid outcome. Instead I see a two part solution

1. Split this article into two, part one with the very detailed and likely notable prose background, but no list, and part two the list with a brief synopsis as the lede and list heading. The first might be titled alomg the lines of Madonna's influence on other performers, the second, the actual list, retains the current title.
2. Keep the new (prose) article for all the standard reasons of notability, referencing etc, and then consider whether the list per se is valid here and either make a separate nomination for AfD or leave it alone, giving the dust here some time to settle.

I am not yet convinced that the list itself is other than an indiscriminate collection of stuff, but I believe that should form a separate discussion from this rather broader article.

I think the set of other lists brought here above as examples should be set apart from this deletion discussiomn. They are obviously not included within it. It os procedurally too late to add them and each deserves its own consideration, which consderation includes no action taken. Fiddle Faddle 11:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete -- Sections "Background", "Context and analysis", and "Legacy" are WP:CFORK and can be reasonably incorporated into existing articles, either Madonna or Cultural impact of Madonna. The definitions of what it means by "being influenced by Madonna", as explained in the "Definition" section, is straight-up WP:OR. I do not see a point of including each-and-every artist who has mentioned Madonna by name in interviews. This is WP:UNDUE and WP:POINT as its finest. HĐ (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have no words on this. I think that these kind of lists are kind of arbitrary so maybe deleting this is recommended to me. ADTN1210 (talk) 21:22, April 10, 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and rescue some of the content to Cultural impact of Madonna. There's still no need to list each and every name exists. We should focus on "how" (prose) rather than an endless list of "who". Bluesatellite (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In the meantime, I would like someone from WikiProject Madonna to rescue necessary information from this list to "Cultural impact of Madonna" (although I am afraid what is included in this list is already in that article, making it CFORK). HĐ (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm working on that in this section. The grammar, wordy sentences etc will be fixed ASAP by other members (maybe Bluesatellite). Thanks --Apoxyomenus (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, this reminds me of some lists a while back regarding TV performances of notable artists, of course they are going to appear at more live shows. Juts like Madonna and other singers have influences generations but we are not looking for a grocery lists with a small lead. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• comment I do not oppose deleting this article. I only fear that voting for this may result in its deletion, while others like it possibly may not end up deleted. So if the other ones go and if this comment can then be used as a “delete” vote.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Just a POV fancruft used for POV pushing and providing a false notion that "everyone has been influenced by my favorite artist". We don't need that here. TolWol56 (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Partially Merge to Cultural impact of Madonna and discard the list. This article has some solid high-level research on Madonna's widespread influence, but much of it is repeated from Cultural impact of Madonna. Any unique thematic material from this list article can be merged over there. Otherwise the list of people suffers from the WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE problems and is not particularly informative. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to clarify, now it's looks like we have "repeated" parts from Cultural impact of Madonna with the list, because I recently transfer the main idea-references into the section "Madonna's influence on others performers" (Nota bene, grammar errors, missing refs etc will be corrected, meanwhile template "under construction" has been placed). In regards the possibility of WP:CFORK pointed out by HD: I'm making sure don't have copy-paste info from the main article or inside the same article. Literature is vast, so I'm pretty sure that problem couldn't actually exists, while BLP briefly explain those points. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Partial merge per Doomsdayer520. It seems that Apoxyomenus, in their Herculean undertaking to revamp the article Cultural impact of Madonna, has already done this. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Just like other similar lists nominated recently, this is yet another barely conclusive list if we look at the WP:OR done here. LearnIndology (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge with Cultural impact of Madonna: topic of "artists influenced by" is unsuited to a rigorous and objective selective criteria, and not useful to readers (how do we determine which, say, ten artists are the most influenced or most important who were influenced). However, the sources and prose content is useful. If all of it that's due weight to Madonna is already in the "Cultural impact" article (I can't see that it is), and anything primarily about another artist is at that artist's article, then we can delete. — Bilorv (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft. All the similar articles listed above have been deleted. Merge any salvageable content to the cultural impact article. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: The very nature of this article is questionable because being influenced by Madonna has such a broad spectrum; many artists can say that they were influenced but what is a meaningful extent? Was Drake meaningfully influenced by her? How about a lil Kim? For an article titled as a list, it isn't just a list but a lot of background that suitable elsewhere in wikipedia. Merge what we can with Cultural impact of Madonna. Ew3234 (talk) 01:49, 24 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Asim jofa

Asim jofa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. All awards they claim to have won are very much non notable. A before search reveals hits in unreliable self published sources. Furthermore, even the sources used in the article are a combination of primary sources and unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: No reliable sources to establish GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as utterly non-notable. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Update Removed the awards information (cited) from designer's own website. made changes. Rest of the information is valid and verifiable -- Ahmad Affan

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - the Showbiz Fashion bio is far from a reliable source; the usual red flags being the obligatory 'net worth' and 'horoscope' sections; no indication of where they get this info from at all. If we added such info to BLPs on Wikipedia it would be a massive violation of our WP:BLP policy. Whilst Dawn is a reliable source but this article is self-submitted 'Images Staff Desk Report' rather than professional journalism so does not indicate notability. Nothing decent coming up in searches. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

*speedy Delete I tagged this article in the first place for quick deletion, and creating a poll was unreasonable in my opinion because the article with.No reliable sources to establish GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 16:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Striking out !vote from a banned editor. Celestina007 (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@MADdi0X, not unreasonable, the tag wasn’t appropriate, a claim to have won awards(albeit non notable) invalidated the A7 tag. I hope you understand. Celestina007 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I understand, my friend, but you could have labeled it properly so.I say this to take the time to improve other articles.--MadD ^(talk) 18:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@MADdi0X, I’m lost, what do you mean labeled it properly? The A7 tag was bound to be declined and the proper thing to have done was to send it to AFD which I did. I appreciate your efforts but working with CSD’s can be tricky Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources found ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 00:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Should have been a speedy deletion. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:15, 11 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Marika Száraz

Marika Száraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

He needs a reputation review, so he sent it to a poll MadD ^(talk) 02:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MadD ^(talk) 02:22, 10 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

BrandZ

BrandZ (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 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⁺⁺ 16:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete The article clearly fails WP:NCORP due to lack of information which establishes why this company is notable.TH1980 (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Sonofstar (talk) 18:57, 17 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 08:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Your Turn, Darling

WITHDRAWN BY NOM Noah ^💬 17:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Your Turn, Darling (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 NFILMl, a BEFORE search doesn't reveal a GNG pass. Noah ^💬 21:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 21:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• It does seem to have the odd thing written about it here and there, in French and Italian, under its French and Italian titles. Uncle G (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep – Assuming Noah's shortcut above was actually meant to read WP:NFILM, this seems like a random, unjustified delete request which could be equally applied to thousands of other non-English language films, and would be equally unjustified. The film also has articles in the French, Italian and German Wikipedias – combined with the sources in the English article, there is enough independent coverage from reliable sources in multiple languages to support notability. Just because the English article is a stub, doesn't make it a case for delete. --Sprachraum (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Other language versions of this article have been invoked, but looking at those articles, there is next to nothing in them with most of them unsourced, so there is not even usable information there that could be used to expand and better source this article. The only one to have multiple sources is the German WP page, but those all appear to be blogs, broken links, or otherwise unreliable sources. So, it is not just the English article that is a stub, this seems to be a consistent problem for this topic. Now, that doesn't mean sources in other languages don't exist on it, which is why I haven't voted delete, but I would say that with the current evidence that is how I would lean. But if anyone could meet WP:THREE, in any language, I would feel differently. Nangears (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Nangears, I believe your request can already be met with the links found in the current four language articles, and there is more to be discovered, if one puts in a bit of effort. I will outline some of that below.

But first I would like to expand on why I find a delete nomination like this one so annoying: Because it is a lazy cop-out from doing the necessary work to improve an article instead, for instance by trying to find & evaluate books and other sources in different languages. Although this film is certainly no masterpiece, it also isn't some unknown obscurity. It is part of a series of popular (at least in Europe) films based on the Lemmy Caution character, culminating in Godard's Alphaville (1965). It was widely distributed and viewed in many countries, especially in Europe. It was available on VHS, in numerous DVD editions and still is in VOD. It is a French/Italian production, so sources are more likely to be found in those languages, but less likely to pop up in a quick English-based internet search. Plus, it features Eddie Constantine, who never made it big in America, but became a huge star in countries like France and Germany – so again: good sources, even on his less renowned films like this one, are more likely to be found in those countries & languages.

Here is what I can see so far:

Books

• Blake, Matt; Deal, David (2008). The Eurospy Guide. Baltimore: Midnight Marquee Press. ISBN 9781887664523. – Link. The earlier 2004 edition of this is already cited in the English article.
• Mavis, Paul (2011). The Espionage Filmography: United States Releases, 1898 through 1999. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. pp. 352–353. ISBN 9780786449156. – This book is not cited in any article yet. The entry may be short (preview doesn't show all of it) but it does contain a critical appraisal.
• Bessy, Maurice; Chirat, Raymond; Bernard, André (1997). Histoire du cinéma français: encyclopédie des films 1961-1965 (in French). Paris: Pygmalion. ISBN 978-2-85704-484-0. – Link 1, Link 2. I couldn't find an online preview (although a PDF may exist), so citing this may involve the harder yards of finding it in a library and translating from French.
• Hasemann, Dieter; Dittmar, Michael (1986). Hoppla, hier kommt Eddie!: Eddie Constantine und seine Filme (in German). Berlin/Leipzig: Vistas. ISBN 9783891580080. – Link 1, Link 2. The book subtitle translates to "Eddie Constantine and his films", so its 141 pages may well contain at least something on Your Turn, Darling. Not available in English, but seeing that I'm based in Berlin, should be accessible to me.
• Thissen, Rolf (1991). Eddie Constantine: Seine Filme, sein Leben (in German). Munich: Heyne Verlag. ISBN 9783453046290. – Link 1, Link 2. Again, only available in German; 319 pages. The book title translates to "Eddie Constantine: His films, his life". Should be accessible to me.

I do not speak French or Italian, so there may be books in those languages that I can't discover easily. As far as other English language books are concerned, it may also be worth looking at the autobiography of his daughter Tanya Constantine, who lived in Europe with Eddie during the time he made this film:

• Constantine, Tanya (2019). Out of My Father's Shadow: Sinatra of the Seine, My Dad Eddie Constantine. Port Townsend, WA: Feral House. ISBN 9781627310666. – Link.

Internet Sources

• "A toi de faire... mignonne". unifrance.org. UniFrance. Retrieved 2021-04-04. – The first place to look for French films is unifrance.org, and the original French entry (instead of the English version currently cited in the en-WP), has a more detailed synopsis which isn't a copy-paste from elsewhere. It also contains most of the essential technical details about the film, so there is no need to rely on IMDb for those.
• Willems Henri (2013). "À toi de faire... mignonne (1963)". frenchfilms.org. James Travers. Retrieved 2021-04-04. – This is a quality English language source for reviews of French films, which wasn't cited anywhere yet.
• David J. Foster (2009-11-04). "Your Turn Darling (1963)". permissiontokill.wordpress.com. Retrieved 2021-04-04. – Already cited in en-WP in this version. Yes, this is a blog, but there is no need to be dismissive about the author David Foster, who is a full-time writer.

Further French language pages you may (or may not) be dismissive of:

• Prisma Média
• SensCritique

And finally the No. 1 reliable Italian source that should at least be used by the it-WP (but isn't):

• cinematografo.it

I haven't searched for more Italian language sources yet; there likely are others. But I believe the links above are more than enough to assert notability. --Sprachraum (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nangears and Noah, it has been nearly two weeks since I have posted the above list of sources, which I believe puts any doubts about notability to rest... Would you please comment whether this makes a difference to your previously stated opinion? You are the two discussion participants who have not reached the conclusion "Keep" yet.

P.S.: Although I haven't been able to actually borrow the two German language books yet (due to Corona), I can confirm from their content tables that both have text passages about this film – in what quality is still to be seen. --Sprachraum (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as per the multiple reliable book and internet sources identified in this discussion which in total show significant independent coverage so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per sources above, and it was also reviewed by major Italian critics like Morando Morandini (in Il Morandini, Zanichelli, 1999) and Paolo Mereghetti (in Il Mereghetti, Baldini & Castoldi, 2001). 151.74.99.206 (talk) 16:28, 12 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 14:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Jahangirak

Jahangirak (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:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly zero in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "196562" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - I cannot find any sources for this ghost town establishing notability. If the village was populated I would’ve argued to keep, but nobody lives here so there’s no point in the page existing. JayPlaysStuff (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete see User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess, only additional content is a Wikipedia clone/aggregator ref. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - mass produced article, no indication of notability, potentially misleading Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 12 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 14:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Lawrence M. O'Toole

Lawrence M. O'Toole (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 subject is a deputy police chef (i.e. the person below the Police Chief) at the St Louis police department. This is not an important position or office to hold, and the individual who is in the position does not have independent notability separate from that office. Is there any encyclopedic value in having an article for the second-in-command for a police department serving less than 300,000 people? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Nothing notable about this guy. The only hits on search are the Wikipedia article and a couple of news articles which just relate to his position as deputy police chief. He actually almost got the police chief position, but I’m not sure that makes it encyclopedic. JayPlaysStuff (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. No significant, in-depth coverage yet. Further promotion may make him notable. Neutrality^talk 22:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete There's this, which is.... interesting, but other than that I couldn't really find many non-primary sources. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:22, 15 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.