Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 11	April 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was WP:CSD#G5. DMacks (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Pourhaji[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass WP:NFOOTY as he has only played in the Iranian 2nd and 3rd division (according to the sources at hand). Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet our generally accepted inclusion criteria for footballers, as per above. The article was also created by a prolific vandal, in evasion of their ban. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Yorkshire Cricket Board List A players. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Proud[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage. Störm (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Yorkshire Cricket Board List A players 3 LA cricket board matches, but I'm not seeing anything other than a couple of match reports, certainly nothing significant. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD, but this one should probably have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Yorkshire Cricket Board List A players as per Rugbyfan22 explaination. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Users felt that the coverage of the subject of the article playing first-class cricket in the County Championship demonstrated notability, along with the solitary List A match. (non-admin closure) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Atri[edit]

(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) 22:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DevaCat1, anything in Wisden about this guy? StickyWicket (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep 12 FC and 1 LA match of which some were in the County Championship. There's this profile from Notts which gives us a fair bit of information on the player, and there's a little bit here. There may well be more in Wisden or offline as suggested. No real suitable redirect if required though due to multiple teams played for. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Trent Bridge article - it's quite possible it's technically a WP:PRIMARY source, but that's neither here nor there - is the sort of sourcing I'd expect a cricketer in this situation to receive. As I've commented in other AfDs, what's really strange is that if this sort of coverage exists, it doesn't show up online, even though he played during the "internet period." I found the same BBC article as RugbyFan22 did, but even though he gets billing in the headlines, the entire article is three sentences long, and a match report. The entire article at this moment is just links to Cricket Archive and CricInfo - CricInfo just has a two sentence blurb of coverage about him playing in a match report. However the Trent Bridge profile is better than I've seen at almost every AfD, so - assuming it qualifies and isn't club-written, and the fact I've scrolled through to the end of a couple online sources - is there anything else written about him?? SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played for a first-class county in the County Championship. StickyWicket (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First-class cricket in the County Championship; debut innings of 98 against Test-class bowling rated coverage in news and in Wisden Cricketers' Almanack (both now cited in article). Johnlp (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FC, LA Data is enough here.Sonofstar (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Economic History of Developing Regions. — The Earwig (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Economic History Society of Southern Africa[edit]

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

Taking this to AfD after 12 years in CAT:NN. It exists, it has a small amount of coverage/citations, but what evidence is there that it is notable? Or a suitable merge/redirect target? Boleyn (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found a couple of passing mentions which of course don't satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. It's a pity, the organization has a long history, but it fails notability guidelines for now. Less Unless (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This is an academic society and publisher of an academic journal, ORGCRIT is not the appropriate criteria to judge notability here. First and foremost, consensus is that academia is generally the one exception to notability as established through the GNG (ie WP:NPROF). Second, as publisher of the journal Economic History of Developing Regions there are ways in which specific relevant criteria can be used (WP:NJOURNALS): it is indexed in SJR and ranked 92 out of 253 in development studies journals and 424 out of 1160 economics studies journals; the journal ranks higher on the development studies list than, for example, Central Asian Survey and Journal of Human Development and Capabilities. However, my recommendation would be that the page be renamed with the title of the journal and the content be merged to the new page (and redirects created from the journal's original name and this page). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Changing !vote in accordance with three other editors indicating support for redirection.--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Courtesy pings to Ravenswing and Kvng who last year PROD-ed and de-PROD-ed, respectively. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of these many specialized and geographically localized societies are, unfortunately, not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and this one appears to be no exception: with no sourcing beyond a passing mention in the article's one footnote, we have no basis for writing a verifiable article that covers the topic in any depth. I tried searching but didn't find anything better. Additionally, although I believe this one is legitimate, without independent sourcing we have no basis for distinguishing legitimate societies of this type from the scammy and spammy ones made up by a small circle of academics to boost their curricula vitarum or fill their pockets with membership revenue. The argument above from NPROF and NJOURNALS doesn't convince me: first, societies are not professors, and most of the NPROF criteria involve verifiable recognition by other scholars or institutions. Some national-level scholarly societies do at least have a level of external recognition, as their country's representative society to a notable international umbrella organization, but we don't have evidence of that here. And second, NJOURNALS is an essay, not even accepted at the level of a guideline, describing specific forms of recognition that might be available to a journal, none of which seem to be met by this society or its journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously I felt that the subject hadn't met notability standards last year, and further than twelve years in, no one gave a damn about improving it to the level that it might. While thanking Goldsztajn for his courtesy in pinging me, I disagree on both his main points. First off, NPROF is very specific in providing alternatives to the GNG to academics, it doesn't at all cover institutions or organizations. Secondly, while one of its publications might prove notable, WP:NOTINHERITED of course debars notability by association. That being said, should that be the case, I've no objection to a merger and redirect. Ravenswing 07:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the (notable) journal, Economic History of Developing Regions, which I just created. The only interesting tidbit of info from the stub article being discussed here (the founding year), has been included. --Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Economic History of Developing Regions as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Protests over COVID-19 policies in Germany. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ballweg[edit]

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

Creator deproded after several days, asked for AfD - well here we go: No signs of sufficient notability per WP:BIO and not sufficient per WP:GNG, this guy organizes only highly controversial demonstrations in Germany CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Protests over COVID-19 policies in Germany, not notable outside of these protests. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 22:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ballweg ist the most known and most important protagonist of Protests over COVID-19 policies in Germany. He organized several demonstrations with more than 30.000 in Berlin and other places. On-going media coveriage as well. --Outdoor-Bro (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kusma; if Querdenken ever evolves into its own article, make that the target. Unless this person goes on to become some kind of Lutz Bachmann duplicate in terms of notoriety, that's likely all we'll ever have to do here. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protests over COVID-19 policies in Germany as per all. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protests over COVID-19 policies in Germany. Sonofstar (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protests over COVID-19 policies in Germany per above. Mukedits (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Batesville Casket Company[edit]

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

NCORP fail. Noah ^💬 21:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability: local interest only.Ingratis (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake: as below. I didn't take the time to check properly. Ingratis (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Batesville Casket Company is the largest casket manufacturer in the US, perhaps in the world, with revenues over $2B. "Local interest only?" --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per this article, Batesville and Matthews together control 80% of the US market. Indyguy (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found quite a few articles specifically about Batesville Casket Company with a quick newspaper archive search, e.g.

FROM HERE TO ETERNITY - NO GRAVE THOUGHTS AT CASKET FIRM, JUST PRIDE. June 27, 1996;The Commercial Appeal, The (Memphis, TN); John M. Hubbell Page: C1 (1346 Words)
FUNERAL PRODUCTS CELEBRATE LIFE - Personalized touches change Batesville Casket's product; April 17, 2000; The Cincinnati Post (OH); Ken Stammen (785 Words)
LARGER IN LIFE AND DEATH - THE FINAL RESTING PLACE CAN NOW BE MORE COMFORTABLE FOR THE OVERWEIGHT; December 9, 2004; The Cincinnati Post, The (OH) Greg Paeth, (669 Words)
DEATH IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF SMALL INDIANA TOWN; September 6, 1998; The Journal Gazette, The (Fort Wayne, IN); Thomas P. Wyman/Associated Press (660 Words)

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added 3 book references which all meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. The article could do with some expanding but the company is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on above comments meets WP:GNG.Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apex University[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ with WP:REFBOMB and with similar versions queued up behind it in Draft, so please do not draftify. Fiddle Faddle 21:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 21:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 21:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 21:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is not supported by reliable sources. Fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are two related questions in any deletion discussion:
- - Do the article's sources establish notability?
  - Does the article as written establish notability so that a reader who reads only the encyclopedia and not the references can see the notability?
  - This draft fails the second test. No amount of reference-bombing can overcome a failure to make a notable case.

Robert McClenon (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG because sources cited are almost all primary sources, and the only secondary sources do not discuss the subject beyond passing mentions. While the text may have been appropriate for a catalog advertising program offerings, it does not meet notability requirements for a Wikipedia article. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As mentioned by others, clearly fails WP:GNG, with little to no secondary sources.defcon5 (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A little more insights on required secondary sources will help me to improve article relevance as per WP guidelines. This university has made place in great place to study in 2019 which is a notable resource. In coming days, with guidance from you all experienced administrators, further improvement can be made in article relevance and notability. Thanks to all of you for your high value contribution. Hitesh Kakkar (talk)

Comment: Hiteshkakkar0912, under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. Thus, since Apex University is a private college, the article must meet both the general notability guideline and the guideline for commercial organizations, including WP:AUD, ...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

Primary sources in this instance include the website of Apex and any sources that are directories, as well as other sources publishing information provided by Apex, such as the Forbes India "Great Indian Institutes" piece, which is an example of "dependent coverage" explained in WP:ORG. It can't be used to establish notability. Forbes profiles are specifically identified in WP:SIRS as being neither independent nor reliable, in the table below the example in the box.

For example, these paragraphs on the Apex site appear almost verbatim on the Forbes India site, page 9:

"The multi disciplinary university offers career-oriented courses at all levels, i.e. Diploma, UG & PG and Doctoral programme and across diverse streams, including Engineering, Architecture, Planning, Fashion Design, Hospitality, Basic Life and Allied Sciences, Law, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Humanities and Arts, Nursing and Para-Medical Science, Veterinary Sciences, Health Sciences, Commerce & Management, Media, Journalism & Mass Communication, Physical Education, Catering & Food Technology, Yoga & Naturopathy, Skill Development, etc."

"The main campus of the University is spread over a sprawling 30 acres campus in an eco-friendly environment at Achrol on Jaipur-Delhi National Highway and is one of the best campuses in the region. AU has world class infrastructure, including state-of-the art research facilities and modern library. In line with Sanjay Shiksha Samiti's legacy of providing quality education, the university uses the latest and innovative methods and technology to impart education."

...from the Apex website:

"Our founder Chairman Dr. S.M. Juniwal, an educationist, philanthropist & a great visionary"

...from the Forbes piece:

"an educationist group established by Dr. S. M. Juniwal, an educationist, philanthropist and and a great visionary

We're looking for secondary, reliable sources that cover the subject in depth, not just a passing mention. Of the 21 citations currently in the article, 10 qualify as primary/dependent, 9 are secondary passing mentions, and the 2 UGC sites display Error 503 "service unavailable" messages. In short, this article has no significant coverage in reliable sources. Because it is a relatively new institution it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is getting ridiculous. I can honestly not remember a single instance where we have deleted a proper, accredited university established by legislation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Necrothesp, I, too, have argued on previous AfDs that approvals by national accreditation agencies constitute significant and substantial "reliable, independent, and verifiable secondary sources". Accreditation usually represents a rigorous process of ensuring quality of a school's programs, faculty, accountability, finances, and support for students' education, and written reports by experts from outside the university. That evidence, and inherent difficulties finding indexed publications for international sources, led me to the conclusion that Wikipedia should allow for the use of evidence a school is accredited and governmentally approved to fulfill the notability requirement. But Wikipedia does not accept sources on accreditation, or statutory authorizations, or affiliations with subject-specific professional agencies to fulfill WP:GNG. The changes brought about by the February 2017 RFC need to be re-addressed, IMHO, specifically on the issue of accreditation and governmental authorization as acceptable and defining evidence of notability. I'd like to see yet another a discussion among the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools community, Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education and the WP community at large, on these sources as valid WP:RS evidence for notability purposes. Given that last Rfc, it's bound to be equally contentious.

However, I do have specific concerns about the the Apex University claim, "Dr Sagar Mal Juniwal's APEX UNIVERSIty/ RECOGNIZED BY UGC". The University Grants Commission (UGC) site does list Apex University as a state private university, but indicates that an expert committee has not been constituted, and in the remarks section says Information called for inspection purpose, still awaited. Drilling down on the "More Info" link opens a table, Apex University showing no "University Contact Information". It is not clear that Apex has yet completed the required submissions and inspections for accreditation. But that is irrelevant to this current discussion, as accreditation does not at this time fulfill the GNG requirement. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Grand'mere Eugene, Thx for your observations. Addressing your specific concern about UGC approval status of the Apex University, whether it has completed the required submissions and inspections for accreditation. Below mentioned are the secondary sources (links) to support voiding your doubt. Also, there is multiple rounds of inspection happens. 1st round for approval to allow to establish a university, 2nd round after three of the establishment to gauge education quality where a questionnaire is being asked to fill by the university officials. "Information called for inspection purpose, still awaited belongs to this 2nd round which needs to be fulfilled once three years are completed" and and then further round to understand meeting compliances, etc.

For contact information, yes, I understand it is missing a section, but mandatory contact details are furnished completely. This is not a major cup to worry about, as it is not missed by the part of the University, needs to be updated by UGC officials only.

Link no. 1: http://www.bareactslive.com/Raj/rj1268.htm (Clearly depicts Apex University, Jaipur Act, 2018 (Act No. 27 of 2018). It is mentioned university has received the assent of the Governor on the 5th day of October 2018.

Link no. 2: https://www.ugc.ac.in/cro/privateuni.aspx (Has Apex University name on serial order 48, under Universities in Rajasthan TAB.) This is the official website of UGC for its “Central Regional Office” as established by the Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India. Name is always included in this list only when all inspections and accreditations are done and the university can officially start enrolling students for admissions.

I'm sure they must have received a letter too from UGC on the establishment. if required, the same can be asked to verify further. But as far as I know the Indian education system for the past 15 years, no disapproved university can make a name in the UGC list. In fact, UGC is having a separate list of fake universities too.

Link no. 3: https://www.casemine.com/act/in/5ed4fb00894ef23297d8b969 (contains an original pdf for RAJASTHAN ACT 27 OF 2018: THE APEX UNIVERSITY, JAIPUR ACT, 2018. THIS IS WRITTEN IN HINDI LANGUAGE, OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF RAJASTHAN STATE IN INDIA. "TRANSLATION OF LINE NO. 11,12 AND 13 IN ENGLISH STATES THAT GOVERNOR OF RAJASTHAN STATE PERMISSION RECEIVED ON 5TH OCT 2018 FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF THE APEX UNIVERSITY."

Link no. 4: https://rajassembly.nic.in/LegislationGovernmentBills.aspx (This is the National Informatics Center website of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly having a list of approved Government Bills. “On Sr. no 83, a link to a bill to notify the establishment of Apex University is mentioned having 17/2018 as bill no. and year, a bill passed on 6 Sept 2018 with act no 27/2018.

Link no. 5: https://hte.rajasthan.gov.in/private_univ.php row no 50 (This is a link to the Higher technical and Medical Education division of Govt of Rajasthan, India. This has Apex University on row no 50 with a link mentioning “Disciplines in which university shall take education and research”. Stamped by Principal secretary to the government and Government central press.

Hitesh Kakkar (talk)

*Keep. (Struck because each user may vote only once)

My Comment and Neutral Observation:

Thanks to everyone for contributing to accessing the relevance of this article for inclusion in Wikipedia. Being a new member of the Wikipedia community, I’ve tried to go through general guidelines for deletion, studied types of sources relevant to understand notability, etc, and also studied several university/college articles which fall under the same categories and location, as mentioned for Apex University. My intention in writing this explanation here is not to influence. I’ve just joined and still have a lot to learn and understand about this highly valued platform “Wikipedia” from your all.

My reasons for requesting admins to KEEP the article “Apex University”: 1. Like other universities in the same category and geography, Apex University is official approved by the legislative assembly and is part of government associations and bodies like AICTE, AIU, BCI, PCI, etc. 2. The parent organization “Sanjay Shiksha Samiti” is serving the nation for the past 54 years, run several institutions dedicated to bringing impact for the betterment of society. Apex University under this umbrella started in 2018, but the parent organization legacy is of 54 years now. 3. Apex University is currently helping students in rural and urban areas to build a great future through imparting relevant skills. 4. Currently, more than 3000 students are studying at the university. I belong to the same city where the campus is headquartered; I have seen it impacting lives and contributing to society through my own eyes. 5. While researching more about “Apex University”, I found coverage by newspapers of national reputation in India. Here, “Apex University” a. 100% Scholarships for the students who need financial assistance to gain access to higher education to build their careers. b. Ward of COVID-19 Warriors Scheme to give Upto 10 Million (1 Crore) Indian Rupees scholarships for the wards of COVID warriors. c. Blood Donation Camp to support no scarcity of basic life support systems during COVID-19 pandemic. d. Contribution to Chief Minister Relief Fund by faculties and management of Apex University to extend financial support by donating salary.

6. With NO intentions to compare, I have actually noticed a good number of articles having existence under the same category and location with either fewer or Not solid secondary sources, lesser associations with regulatory bodies, etc. Considering their existence, I who belong to the same location where “Apex University” and other privileged universities/colleges (have published article) exists and is very active in understanding the Indian Education system and contributors. I believe, like others “Apex University” deserves a chance now to be part of the esteemed “Wikipedia Family”.

In short, a university set up as per laws and legislation, contributing notably for the betterment of the society through education, supporting society during pandemic deserves support from Wikipedia admins and fair a chance to be part of Wikipedia Family.

I again request you all not to take it as my personal request, but when I look like an outsider with a neutral approach. Apex University article doesn’t deserve to be deleted.

REST IS YOUR JUDGEMENT, YOU GUYS ARE MORE EXPERIENCED THAN ME. I’LL HONOR YOUR DECISION IN EACH CASE. INCOMING TIMES, THIS ARTICLE NOTABILITY, AND RELEVANCE MAY SURELY BE IMPROVED.Hitesh Kakkar (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Hitesh Kakkar (talk) Hitesh Kakkar (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The article is poorly referenced, but since the author is active here, let's draftify if for them. Maybe over the years better sources (news/media coverage, even academic studies about this institituin) will appear, and if they are still interested in this topic, they can rewrite it into something publishable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus There is already a draft version Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 09:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, Then that's where this should stay. Not good enough for public space.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus which is, with precision, why this version requires deletion. The creating editor should work on Draft:Apex University which is present in Draft already. There is no point in draftifying what is already in draft Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 06:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent Fair enough, delete makes sense then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Not fair. May pls have a look at these links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaipur_National_University Hitesh Kakkar (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagan_Nath_University,_Jaipur and confirm how these articles stands better in terms of notability, references and meeting GNG. These are published articles.[reply]

Your feedback with comparison will help to understand where Apex University article lacks meeting GNG and notability. Accordingly will rewrite, if deleted.

I have gone through GNG, other similar articles, etc and whatever I have understood doesn't seems like this deserves deletion.If any improvement required in content etc, pls tell same will expedite.Hitesh Kakkar (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Added a few more relevant details for 1st initiatives taken, academics, and faculties in an attempt to make it better enough for public space. Who so ever take the final decision on the fate of this article is humbly requested to read all conversations here entirely & patiently, read the article, compare if necessary, and then decide on its fate judicially, keeping (delete) as the last option if this doesn't complement the Wikipedia requirements, at all. Your decision will be honored. Hitesh Kakkar (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Approvals by national accreditation agencies do not constitute significant and substantial "reliable, independent, and verifiable secondary sources" because these are a primary source. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Policy of 3[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only sources used are primary source Ebullition Records and unacceptable source Discogs. Search on Google brings up equally questionable sources like bandcamp.com Graywalls (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Might I add that none of the three interwiki links cite any reliable sources. All of them rely on the site of their record label and discogs. I also did a search. Searching with their name returns a lot of unrelated stuff, so I searched with some of their albums and I couldn't find anything other than the standard unreliable sites. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBAND. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don’t know how this managed to stay here for that long. WP:NBAND not met -Xclusivzik (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BAND. The Discogs sources are not RS per WP:RSPSOURCES, and the Ebullition Records sources are not independent, as Ebullition Records marketed them. That's all the sources on the article. A BEFORE didn't yield anything substantial. There's a piece from university station WXPN here, but per WP:BAND, that doesn't add toward notability since it's from a school. There's an interview here in Loud! Fast! Philly!, but interviews are not independent. So in the end, it just doesn't meet notability requirements. --Kbabej (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Austin-East High School. Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Austin-East Magnet High School shooting[edit]

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

Relatively minor criminal act, should be a section of the main Austin-East High School page –DMartin 21:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –DMartin 21:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Way too early to nominate for deletion, details are still emerging. Multiple victims including a police officer, it's a top news story right now in the UK and getting international coverage. Inexpiable (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The details are now in, and it's just one dead and one injured. Not particularly notable for a school shooting. Love of Corey (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is not the job of Wikipedia to report on shootings as they happen. KidAd • SPEAK 22:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It just happened, school shootings are not minor criminal acts. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Austin-East High School per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the merged section becomes too big, it can be split out into a new article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The details are unclear at the moment, but this incident did happen at a school and it involved a fatality. That's fairly unusual, even for the U.S. There is a reasonable likelihood that the event will receive sustained coverage. The matter can be revisited in a few months to see if the coverage has ceased or not. Nsk92 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have a number of incidents at schools that left only one fatality and no articles for it. Love of Corey(talk) 00:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Millard South High School shooting comes to mind. –DMartin 00:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it is a crying shame that we still don't have a separate article about that one, given that "the shooting was the deadliest school shooting in Nebraska's history". Nsk92 (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were shootings in Nebraska that were way deadlier than that one, e.g. Westroads Mall shooting and the Charles Starkweather crime spree. "Deadliest school shooting" may be an interesting tidbit, but that alone isn't enough sufficient basis for notability. Love of Corey (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the cited article, there was only one other school shooting in Nebraska's recorded history, and that one involved one injury and no fatalities. So while saying "the shooting was the deadliest school shooting in Nebraska's history" is literally true, it doesn't help make your case here. Note that I am not making light of shootings of anyone in any setting; all gun violence is tragic as far as I'm concerned. This is strictly about establishing what is and isn't notable enough to have a standalone article in this encyclopedia. Funcrunch (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a myriad of notable topics for which we don't have articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a good argument for deleting something, notability should be the deciding consideration. If there are school shootings that have received significant coverage and which satisfy WP:EVENT, then any editors who have the relevant information should feel free and in fact encouraged to create articles about those events. Plus in this case the fatality is a kid. [1]. Nsk92 (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see List of school shootings in the United States. We have had so many school shootings with little to no fatalities and/or injuries at this point. Unless you're saying we should have articles for those as well. Love of Corey (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know without looking more closely and doing various searches to see what kind of coverage those events received. I suspect that there are quite a few entries on that list that satisfy WP:EVENT but currently do not have articles. Nsk92 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also List of school shootings in the United States (before 2000) to consider. My point is that school shootings are just as frequent in the U.S. as mass shootings in general, and it'd be a mistake to create an article for each and every one of them without considering policies such as WP:NOTNEWS. Love of Corey (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Love of Corey (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Austin-East High School as per nom, since the school itself has an article.Ingratis (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Austin-East High School. Tragic but sadly, given the large number of school shootings with multiple victims in the U.S., not notable enough for a separate encyclopedia article. Funcrunch (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The latest police press conference indicates this incident was an officer-involved shooting rather than a school shooting. If this article is somehow kept (which I strongly doubt), it may need a rename per similar articles on officer-involved shootings. Love of Corey (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And when I say a "school shooting" here, I mean the archetypal definition of a student targeting at least one other student and/or teacher. Love of Corey (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Austin-East High School or Delete. This is a massive case of WP:TOSOON. As it just occurred and there's zero evidence there will be sustained coverage of it at all. Let alone enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. Wikipedia isn't a news outlet and articles are not supposed to be on single, transient events that are only talked about in the news for a few days and then never come up again. Which is how most of these school shootings turn out. There was over 45 school shootings in America in 2019 and I doubt all or most of them have articles (or deserve to). Also, I'm not solid on a merge compared to delete, because it's not worth merging things that are not worthy of being in Wikipedia in the first place. It's better just to get rid of content that shouldn't be contained in articles. Although, I'm not going to be that bothered if it closes as merge. I just don't think it's the best outcome. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on the high school and get under control. This was a shoot out where an armed student opened fire on police responding to the fact that he was in the school armed, and the police returned fire which resulted in the student dieing. Wikipedia is not news, and we need to stop creating news articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable article about armed student hiding in a bathroom and resisting arrest. More coverage sure to emerge as the policemen's body cam video is released and as internal affairs comes out with its conclusion. You don't even need a crystal ball to know this. XavierItzm (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge difference between "more coverage" and "sustained coverage." Wikipedia requires the latter, not the former. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So far the coverage has shown no sign of disappearing, including continued national coverage, such as NYT[2], CNN[3], WaPo[4], AjC[5], NBCNews[6], etc. The local media in Knoxville certainly treats this as a high profile event and not just another neighborhood shooting. The recent surprising developments in the case make it much less likely that the media will drop the story quickly. The original police/TBI account of the shooting turned out to be incorrect, and now it comes out that it wasn't the student who shot the responding police officer. Now that the student's identity has been made public, it is known that he was a black teenager, while at least one of the responding police officers was white. The school itself, where this black teenager was killed by the police, has 87% minority student enrollment, with 77% black student enrollment.[7]. The prosecutors are refusing to release the police body camera footage and there have already been community protests. Given what is happening in the U.S. right now (Daunte Wright protests, Derek Chauvin's trial), the police response here will be scrutinized much more closely. It is unlikely that a story like this one will be buried and disappear quietly into the sunset even though it happened in a southern state. XavierItzm is correct, one does not need to have a crystal ball here to know that WP:SUSTAINED is likely to be met. Nsk92 (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles you cited are from yesterday. Which is still only 2 days after the shooting and not sustained coverage. Sustained coverage has to be over a certain period of time. Hence why it's called "sustained" and I'm pretty sure two days worth of coverage doesn't count. Even if it's a lot of coverage, because again, the amount doesn't matter here. It's not like the article can't be recreated in a couple of weeks or a month when there actually is sustained coverage, if there is, but until 100% CRYSTALL to say two worth of news coverage on anything constitutes or shows there will be sustained coverage. It's also 100% CRYSTAL to use the particulars of the case or other ones to argue this will still be a thing in a couple of months. Since it's purely speculation that it will be. Again though, it doesn't matter if it is still an article in 2 months, just recreate the article when it actually is. Until then, Wikipedia isn't a news outlet and having an article full of nothing but breaking news from yesterday or the day before is totally treating it like it is one. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the sources I cited are from yesterday. I don't have a time machine. There will be more sources today and I'll add them. But when a significant event happens, we don't wait two months before creating a Wikipedia article about it. We exercise good judgement based on the indicators available. That's what I am trying to do here. At the moment there is continuing significant coverage, both locally and nationally and there are (very) good reasons to believe that it will continue. Under these circumstances the correct thing is to keep the article now and, in the, unlikely in my view, case that the coverage will disappear in 2-3 months, nominate it for deletion then. Nsk92 (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Wikipedia article about a mass shooting at a Wal-Mart distribution center in Red Bluff, California last year. That shooting had national coverage for the first couple of weeks after. Which people used to justify keeping the article when it was eventually AfDed for the same reasons as this one. There was a lot of the same things said about why the article should be kept as your saying, "this will be a big story", "delete it in two months if there's no coverage anymore", "we're just trying to improve Wikipedia" Etc. Etc. You know what happened there? The article was deleted and rightfully so because after about 3 weeks it was never a thing again. Even though it had been covered in CNN, The New York Times, Etc. Etc. If the article had of been kept, it would have just been a waste of everyone's time to do another AfD for it later when the news dropped the story once the sensationalism died down. I can almost guarantee the same thing will happen here. Past precedence with what happened to similar articles sent to AfD matters also in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the High School's page. A crime scene with one deceased who was the suspect, one injury which may not have even come from the suspect. We are WP:NOTNEWS Continued coverage can be indicated in section at High School page, but the suspect is dead, so there won't be a trial, suspect was armed, so don't expect some kind of charges against the police officer. At best an Internal Affair investigation to see how officer was shot if not by the suspect's gun. Event got national coverage, but any sustained coverage will probably be local. Either way article was made WP:TOOSOON. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The event is still getting some national coverage (present tense). Regarding its future impact, there are other indicators to consider apart from the trial. As I mentioned above, the racial aspect of the situation makes protests of some kind fairly likely and in fact some have happened already. The dead student's family has already hired an attorney[8] after learning that it was not him who shot the responding officer. And even if the sustained coverage does turn out to be just local, that still would still qualify under WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Nsk92 (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the arguments that you've already made why it should not be deleted, what's particularly wrong with it being merged to the article about the school? Merging it seems like a good compromise to me consider it has some coverage as an event, but probably won't get enough to a separate article, and none of the keep "voters" have yet to say why they think merging it wouldn't be an acceptable option. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The event is still developing, and there are significant new ongoing developments that are being extensively covered by the media. E.g. there was a big BLM protest, a suit filed by the city administration seeking to override the DA's order that prevents the bodycam footage from being released, growing controversy about the bodycam footage, etc. Trying to squeeze this info into the parent article about the school would immediately present WP:DUEWEIGHT problems. There is already enough material for a standalone article here and there will be more as things develop further. Nsk92 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Austin-East High School It doesn't make sense to have a separate article about a minor event. KnaveBear (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simply labeling an event "minor" without any reference to how it is covered by WP:RS is a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. The local media in Knoxville continues to cover it as a high profile event, with new developments still unfolding. There are even continuing stories about the event in the national media from today and yesterday, e.g. [9],[10][11]. Nsk92 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In case anyone cares to pay attention to what's actually happening in the case and to which sources and how continue to cover it, today's (April 19) story in Huffington Post about the case reports that Ben Crump, a national civil rights lawyer representing the families of George Floyd and Daunte Wright, announced that his office will be representing Anthony Thompson’s family. Crump released a statement denouncing the speed with which the police resorted to the use of force against a person of color in Anthony Thompson's case. [12] Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - keep votes are all based on "it's too soon to delete this" - that's the opposite of what our policy WP:NOTNEWS says (explained by WP:RECENTISM) - which says we don't have a deadline to have an article about something and it can always be created later if it proves to be independently notable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the same logic we should delete the article about every recent event from the last several days, including, say Indianapolis FedEx shooting, and wait several months before creating it. We do not wait to create an article where continued significant coverage is available and all reasonable indications are that such coverage will continue. That is exactly the case here. That's not at all what WP:NOTNEWS requires. It is always easier to delete an article than to create it. Where the indicators are that the event is likely to be notable, the standard course of action is to create an article now and renominate it for deletion later, in case the coverage disappears a few months from now, not the other way around. Given what is happening with 2020–2021 United States racial unrest right now and in light of the involvement of George Floyd and Daunte Wright's lawyer in this case, as noted above, it is extremely unlikely that the media will suddenly drop this story or that the Knoxville community itself will stop treating it as a high profile matter. Nsk92 (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92, this flies in the face of our "no deadline" guidance. There is no deadline to have an article on something, and this push to be a breaking news source that has the most up to date information on things is not in line with being an encyclopedia. This is exactly what the GNG is designed to prevent - articles about recent events (which are the definition of "routine news coverage") being used to justify notability of something that does not have true notability beyond the timeframe. Notability isn't temporary, but routine, local, or temporal news coverage does not contribute much at all to notability. Wikipedia also should not attempt to judge "inidcators" that an event "is likely to be notable" - we wait to see if it is beforehand. There's a ton of WP:acronyms that your comment here flies in the face of - some of which are beyond a consensus formed at an AfD discussion such as the pillars and what Wikipedia is not. If you truly believe that Wikipedia should be a breaking news site and not an encyclopedia, I wish you the best of luck in attempting to obtain a larger consensus (project-wide) for that - but until you do, I'll point out when !votes fly in the face of that project wide consensus against such "breaking news" things. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL guidance. Like I said, according to your logic, articles like Indianapolis FedEx shooting would have to be deleted on exactly the same grounds you are advancing now. That's not what we do. We look at the available coverage and other indicators of likely notability and make a common sense decision about how to proceed. That's what always happens in practice with new events (not just crimes, but new events of any kind). I am arguing my case based on the sources and the kind of coverage they actually provide here. You are not. Nsk92 (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least for me its a common sense decision about how to proceed based on how the guidelines fit this particular instance. You can't treat AfDs like its one or the other though like you are. I assume everyone else who voted merge is doing a similar calculation about it to me. Yet your arguing with everyone that disagrees with you. Despite the fact that we are following your standards. Just coming to different conclusions. That said nowhere does someone simply saying "do it my way because common sense brah" ever lead to anything besides pointless bickering. Adamant1 (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our standards do not exists in a vacuum and cannot be applied as some kind of abstract ideological principles devoid of context. So far nobody who argued for merge or delete undertook any substantive analysis of available coverage. The TOOSOON arguments presented so far basically really boil down to IDONTLIKEIT kind of arguments. Nsk92 (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what coverage is available now - virtually no coverage of "current events" can be described as anything other than routine - which by definition means that none of it counts for notability. Wikipedia is not breaking news - this is a core principle of what Wikipedia is/isn't - and your attempts at morphing other policies/guidelines to "override" this by finding some way to finagle an article in to fit your idea that Wikipedia should be breaking news do not override the fact we simply aren't. There is an argument to be had about events that can be presumed notable before coverage exists - that's a key point of our subject notability guidelines, after all. A mass shooting by a former employee that resulted in 8 deaths is certainly much closer to that presumption than a shooting that resulted in no deaths (aside from the perpetrator) and only one injury. Your comment below also suggests that you're arguing for this to be kept because you think that "the racial justice aspect of this" should be considered by editors - and that in and of itself is inappropriate and you should reconsider commenting if that's your basis for commenting on these sorts of AfD discussions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsk92: Indianapolis FedEx shooting is not really the best example to bring up for your argument. As the one who created it, I noticed the article wasn't up on Wikipedia while the breaking news coverage was minutes to an hour old. I created it once I learned of the death toll in that shooting, and I suspect that if the numbers were considerably lower than what we tragically got, we wouldn't have a Wikipedia article on that incident at all. I made the argument over at another AfD discussion that articles about mass shootings (which this article started out as) should not be created until we learn official casualty numbers from law enforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love of Corey (talk • contribs)

Responding since I was pinged. The number of fatalities in a particular incident is a totally arbitrary parameter and the incident does not have to be a mass shooting to be notable. Plenty of events with a single fatality are notable, e.g., to take a recent example, Killing of Daunte Wright. What matters for notability is the coverage the event receives in WP:RS. Daunte Wright was just one black 20-year-old black young man killed by the police under controversial circumstances, and Anthony Thompson Jr was just one 17-year-old back young man killed by the police under controversial circumstances. Of course, the Daunte Wright case received more and higher profile coverage, but an event does not need to be ITN worthy to merit an article. The Anthony Thompson Jr case continues to receive significant coverage, including from national media, and the events there are still unfolding. Nsk92 (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For those arguing for merge or delete, I'd like you to take another look at what happened in this case so far and how it is actually being covered by WP:RS. A black teenager was killed at school during an armed confrontation with the police. The original police account of the shooting turned out to be crucially incorrect. There is a bodycam video that the DA is refusing the release, despite a mounting community pressure to do so and a court suit by the city itself seeking to release the video. There have been escalating local racial justice protests over the shooting. The dead student's family hired the highest profile lawyer for these types of cases, Ben Crump, to represent them. The national media continues to cover the case in-depth. Just from earlier today we have AP[13], Newsweek[14], Huffington Post[15], and even international media [16]. Today's NYT story[17] says that the Anthony Thompson case was mentioned at the Minnesota racial justice protest on Monday. Plus the local media in Knoxville continues to give the case high profile coverage. Calling this case "minor" completely disregards how the WP:RS have been covering it. The racial justice aspect of this case makes it different from many other school shootings and makes it highly improbable that in today's U.S. political, societal and media climate the story will quietly disappear. Nsk92 (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heated content

Assume good faith and don't bludgeon the process. Adamant1 (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't questioned anyone's AGF and I am not bludgeoning the discussion. But I am making arguments that need to be made and drawing attention to new developments. Nsk92 (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you need to read WP:BLUDGEON again. You've already made your points many times over; now it's time to let the AfD discussion take its course. Love of Corey (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've commented 9 times just today and nothing you have said adds anything new to the AfD discussion that you haven't stated multiple times already. I'd call that WP:BLUDGEON. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I said something substantively new that I haven't said multiple times already. I brought up significant new developments in the case, such as escalating BLM protests around it and the involvement of Ben Crump, the highest profile national lawyer for these types of case. I provided examples of continued fresh coverage by national and international media. I did respond to a 'merge' opinion that provided reasoning that was, at least in my opinion, invalid on its face. And I responded to a baseless accusation of not assuming AGF. None of that constitutes bludgeoning. Nsk92 (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you doing a running commentary of every breaking story of the thing isn't adding anything new or substantive to the discussion. Not every single little transient minutia of a subject is notable or helps in AfD discussions. Especially when it's something that is still ongoing. If anything, it helps less then just not saying anything for reasons that should be really obvious. As far as you "responding" to the supposedly baseless accusation of not assuming good faith, the lack of faith your assuming comes from the fact that you think people who voted merge just need to read the latest sensationalist news story about it to change their minds. It's extremely bad faithed to act like people who voted differently then are just doing so out of ignorance of the subject or a lack of special information that you have access to and they don't for whatever reason. It just comes off as confrontational. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this entire subthread either go into a collapse box or be moved to the AfD talk page if someone wants to continue it there. Nsk92 (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to do that personally, sorry. Love of Corey (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the high school's article or Delete. NOTNEWS, TOOSOON, etc. Shearonink (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Austin-East High School. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the high school's article; two people dying is a tragedy, but it is not ipso facto a notable event. My grandparents, while dearly missed, don't have an article about their death. The September 11th attacks were tragic, yet do not justify the creation of 1,500 articles (one for every two people who died). Et cetera... jp×g 04:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: As it happens, it was one person dying in this event, not two. One black teenage student killed by a police officer. But as I noted above, the number of fatalities has nothing to do with notability of a particular criminal event. What counts is the coverage of an event by WP:RS. The killing of Daunte Wright was a single fatality event, and yet we have two articles about it, Killing of Daunte Wright and Daunte Wright protests. Just like in the Daunte Wright case, the notability of the death of Anthony Thompson Jr comes mainly from the racial justice aspect, not from the high number of fatalities. Nsk92 (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you have responded to almost every single "delete" or "merge" !vote with nearly identical lengthy go-offs, or why you {{collapse}}d the previous thread where someone pointed out that this was WP:BLUDGEONing. Regardless, I will again make reference to WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms. jp×g 09:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed a portion of a discussion that was getting heated after another editor who participated in that discussion agreed that collapsing would be a good idea but said that they didn't know how to make a collapse box themselves[18]. Regarding Michelle Obama's arms, we are not talking about somebody's arms here, we are talking about a young black man who was killed by the police in a country that is gripped by a racial unrest. Nsk92 (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 was the person you were arguing with; Love of Corey (the person who said they didn't know how to collapse the discussion) had not posted in it previously. jp×g 17:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have. See the third post from the top within the collapse box content. Nsk92 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was heated anyway. At least not anymore then a lot of these conversations get that aren't subsequently collapsing because of it. IMO the more important thing then "tone policing" is the clear WP:BLUDGEONing by Nsk92 that collapsing the discussion only serves to obscure. No one would be offended by anything in that discussion to the point where it needs to be hidden from view though. Otherwise, 90% of AfD discussions would be collapsed. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is clearly significant coverage, including from national outlets, regarding this event. And the coverage is ongoing/sustained, which is perhaps unsurprising given the current racial and political climate in the United States. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what I can tell there was like 2 articles in national outlets in the last week about how the officer won't be charged in the shooting. There's been zero about any kind of protests over it though. Let any ongoing ones or anything else indicating this will be an ongoing thing as a notable incident. A few outlets have even pivoted to articles about "Shootings at the school" in general instead of this specific one. Which really makes me think it's not going to be as notable story on it's own long-term. At least not enough to warrant a separate article or not just merging it into the schools article. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect on both counts. There have been way more than 2 articles in national outlets covering that none of the officers will be charged. E.g. CNN[19], WaPo[20], NYT[21], NBC News[22], AjC[23], USA Today [24], NY Post[25]. There have been at least two subsequent national news stories specifically about the follow-up protests: Fox News, [26] and NBC News[27]. Nsk92 (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So here's the thing, the protests where two days ago, going by the dates of the news articles about them they were only for 2 days and pretty insignificant, and they seem to have ended after the police wasn't charged. That's the problem with going with breaking news for every freaken metric of what's notable or not like your doing. Plus, "protests" is a mush brained, meaningless word that has no bearing on something being notable anyway. No one is going to argue that the article should be kept if 15 angry kids from the school march around in front of it for a few days even if it is a "protest." Otherwise, they just passed a law in Florida that anytime more then two people are gathered in one place it's a riot. So, I guess your standard there would be that literally everything involving more then two people in Florida that has a couple of news stories about it within a week of each other is notable "because riots."

Not to mention most things these days that are in the news involves some kind of legitimate protest. You think "protests" are enough for something to be notable, cool. Start an RfC about it then and see if you can get the notability guidelines changed over it. Until then though, there still needs to be sustained coverage of the event and it just hasn't been long enough since it happened to say there has been or is going to be continued coverage. In the meantime, even the Fox News article you linked to discusses the 5 shootings that have happened at the school and isn't focused on the single shooting that this article is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protests involving hundreds of people are not "insignificant". And the protests have not ended. There was a smaller protest on Saturday[28], and it remains to be seen what will happen today. The city administration and the KPD are preparing for more[29]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did anything you've linked to say the protests involved "hundreds of people? From the video it like 20 or 30 students from the school at best. Also, is the fact that the protests have been smaller an indication that this story is picking up steam or dying down? The answer to that should be pretty obvious. Adamant1 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I cited above don't mention the size of the protests, but the sources cited in the article do. Here is another regional news source, from Nashville, about the Thursday protest:Hundreds protest in Knoxville after DA says no charges for officers in shooting at school. The protest yesterday was indeed smaller but we don't know what will happen today or tomorrow. However we do know that the media in Knoxville has not dropped the story or pushed it away. The top front page headline in Knox News today[30] is about the fact that only one of the police body cameras in the incident worked properly, and the next top one concerns an internal KPD investigation of the incident[31]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Still though, there's nothing in the notability guidelines that says things that have protests around them are inherently more notable then things that don't. There's also nothing that makes a "school shooting" any more notable then any other type of shooting. In the meantime for criminal acts there's WP:VICTIM that makes it clear "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person" and we have the schools article as a perfectly good place for the information. WP:INVALIDBIO also makes it clear that having a relationship to something that is notable isn't enough for that thing to be notable. It's also clear that we should "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics."

And those things are are all your basing your keep arguments on. While you can base your keep arguments on whatever you want, it's still on you in these discussions to provide a guideline based rational for them and I haven't seen you do that. Whereas, there's plenty of guideline based reasons for the merge counter arguments. If you have a good dispute point for why merging is bad, cool. Then provide it. I've asked several times though and you've just repeated the same old talking points of protests and people involved while not actually giving one or citing a guideline. I'll also add that criminal acts by their nature inherently get news coverage. Especially shootings and ones involving cops. So there has to be more then that to separate the notable ones from the non-notable ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to How I Unleashed World War II. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 18:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Franek Dolas[edit]

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

Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Character biography can easily be included in the plot for the movie he appears in - How I Unleashed World War II - which is currently lacking. Rinbro (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. Keep Could perhaps redirect to the movie he appears in but the character fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC) PS. I started a deletion discussion on pl wiki at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:04:05:Franek Dolas, but it seems it will be kept there. Editors there are arguing he is well known and the article will almost certainly be kept there, but the sourcing found is still poor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC) PPS. He appears in the name of one academic paper [32] but I don't have access to it, and I cannot conclude he is discussed in depth in the paper (I can only access the first two pages, and he is not mentioned on those). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC) PPPS. Changing to keep. I got access to the academic paper above, and it contains some analysis of the character (I'll try to expand the article shortly). In addition to the SIGCOV in this one academic article, it also cites some works - Polish movie reviews from the communist era? - not digitized, but some mention him in the name and may contain further coverage (some are quoted). Ping User:Rinbro, User:Rorshacma (note I expanded the article with the content of the academic source in question). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to How I Unleashed World War II - There is nothing to indicate that the character is sufficiently independently notable from the single film he appeared in that a WP:SPLIT is needed. Redirecting to the article on the film would be fine, but as there is no sourced content, there is nothing that can be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after it has been expanded already - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 21:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 21:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Currently nothing overly substantial has been provided for the character. Even if more sources do exist, the main article is severely lacking in content, so all content on the character belongs there until such a time that the weight on the topic requires a split. TTN (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to How I Unleashed World War II: No notability independent of the film. Clearly fails GNG. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neemat Daud Abdulrahim[edit]

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

De-prodded. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. First three sources in the article are self-published websites so not reliable, fourth source is a passing mention so not significant coverage, fifth source is the homepage of a website with no linked article, sixth source is a normal self-published website so not reliable. WP:BEFORE not turning up additional sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not pass GNG Sources used are either primary or user generated. The secondary source only quoted her. A BEFORE search does not come up with much either. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 11:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly promotional article about a non notable subject, does not pass WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. --hroest 13:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources could be observed. Celestina007 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more reliable sources will be cited. Printed sources Currently not within reach, and will be added ASAP! Atibrarian (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two reliable references (books), more to be added once available/within reach. The Sokks The Subject does pass WP:GNG It's unfortunate more of the published books aren't online.Atibrarian (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)^[1][reply]

References

^ https://books.google.com.ng/books/download/Nominal_List_of_Practising_Librarians_in.ris?id=Y8HgAAAAMAAJ&output=ris

Comment - @Atibrarian, The sources you've added quite unfortunately do not contribute towards the subject's notability. A subject is considered notable if they have been discussed in detail in multiple sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. This does not include a passing mention or a list where the subject is mentioned. Kindly see The Golden Rule and WP:THREE. Thank you and I hope this helps. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 17:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rareș Ilie[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a match report that praised his performance in a friendly match and a routine announcement about testing positive for COVID-19 but nothing that could be considered as WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:SIGCOV, none of the WP:NFOOTBALL criteria met. Less Unless (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, no no WP:SIGCOV. Sonofstar (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ștefan Pănoiu[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:SIGCOV, none of the WP:NFOOTBALL criteria met. Less Unless (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Jorza[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ASEAN Federation of Accountants[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Only one reference and that's self-published. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NORG and can't be easily expanded with outside coverage. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:NORG in its current state; my searches didn't turn up any useful third-party sources. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aboubacar Langone[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. he has not played in a FPL yet. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Non-notable. Kemalcan (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)~~ I am withdrawing my nomination. --Kemalcan (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has played in Serie C, a fully-pro league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry maybe i missed that information. Which team was that? Nehme1499 --Kemalcan (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only one appeareance in Serie C? --Kemalcan (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Soccerway, he has played one game in 19/20. Now, obviously this means that he only narrowly passes WP:NFOOTY. However, I would still keep him as a 20 y/o currently playing in the Serie D will very likely play again in the Serie C in a couple of years, and get more appearances. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nehme, young player with ongoing career who meets NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 10:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am withdrawing my nom. GiantSnowman--Kemalcan (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Selkoe[edit]

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

Previously deleted page. Possible paid spam. Citterz (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tibor Fülöp[edit]

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

His 8 mins of professional football allowed his article to be created as he technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL. When it comes to WP:GNG, which ultimately Fülöp must be able to pass, I couldn't find any reasonable coverage. A Hungarian search was made difficult as his name is so common in Hungary. Working with his profiles on HLSZ and MLSZ, I found an exhaustive list of the clubs that he has played for. I then performed searches in conjunction with these clubs to narrow down the results.

My conclusion is that the best sources about him are an extremely brief injury announcement, a match report and appearing in a list of players released by a club. This is not significant coverage, therefore, I propose that we delete the article from Wikipedia for failing our notability standards for biographies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as the nominator is a confirmed blocked sockpuppet.(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Omoraro[edit]

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

A non notable entrepreneur. Citterz (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. The nominator is a confirmed blocked sockpuppet (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maile Meyer[edit]

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

Can't see any reliable coverage for this entrepreneur. Citterz (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. The nominator is a confirmed blocked sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norah Alawadhi[edit]

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

News coverage is not enough to pass GNG. It looks like that just for a viral photo he got some coverage which is not sufficient for GNG Citterz (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Left-Handed v Right-Handed. No consensus that this subject meets any of our notability guidelines; but the rough consensus of the participating editors seems to indicate this WP:ATD is the preferred outcome. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Knill[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Left-Handed v Right-Handed A search brought about no real results, but if there is any results they will likely be offline due to the matches being played in the 1800s. I don't have access to newspaper archives so I'm redirect for now, but will check back if anybody else does some digging. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Happy for Rugbyfan22's suggestion, but would be nice to find his name out at the very least. StickyWicket (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he's the father of Sir Stuart Knill, 1st Baronet but only tentative links so far. StickyWicket (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HILTON[edit]

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

i fail to see how this guy meets WP:NMUSIC, there is no meaningful coverage, afaict no charting songs and everything is based on interviews w/ blogs and blackhat SEO and a press release. TAXIDICAE💰 17:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find significant coverage for this person. Current article reads like a promotional piece. --Nemov (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources, I’m unable to see how they satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cited refs don't establish notability and I was unable to find any other sources. ~Kvng (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't search sources. Sonofstar (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Just way, way, way TOOSOON. --Kbabej (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wearside Combination Football League[edit]

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

This league, which was believed to be at level 13 of the English football league system, although was not officially part of the system, does not meet WP:FOOTYN criteria for presumed notability. Its notability has to be based purely on coverage. The only decent coverage this league ever seemed to get was when it closed down; see Sunderland Echo.

In my searches, I only found one completely trivial book mention, a listing of results in Chronicle Live and a passing mention in the same paper. Searching the British newspaper archive for Wearside Combination League only yielded results listings, league tables and fixture listings, all of which are far from WP:SIGCOV. I also note that only the Sunderland Echo ever seemed to even mention this league. Searching its full name returned even less. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Local interest only. Nigej (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sonofstar (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Will add an unnecessary disambiguation given that there is already a draft at the base name. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madhagaja[edit]

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

Unreleased film, which does not satisfy film notability or general notability. Has been created in both draft space and article space, so the question is which space it belongs in.

Film notability guidelines are confusing, but there are essentially three classes of films:

1. Films that have been released. Notability of these depends primarily on reception. They are usually notable.
2. Films that have begun production (principal photography or animation) and are reported by a reliable source to have at least begun production, but have not been released. They are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability because it has received significant coverage. There is a myth that a passing mention of production qualifies a film for notability.
3. Films that have not begun production. These are usually redirected.

Since the purpose of an article is to provide information to the reader, the article should speak for itself, rather than requiring a search by the reader or the reviewer. As written, the article says nothing about production, so it is in class 3, and should be deleted or redirected (and the draft can be kept). A naïve Google search for Madhagaja shows that the film is heavily pre-advertised in India. We would have guessed that.

This article can be deleted from article space, unless it can be expanded within seven days to pass a Heymann test. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Unreleased films must meet WP:NFF, and this one fails. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: as mentioned by Donaldd23, fails WP:NFF defcon5 (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Fails WP:NFF. Sonofstar (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayşe Önal (footballer)[edit]

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

A very similar case to Büşra Demirörs. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL per TFF, which has no appearances for the senior national team or in a league listed at WP:FPL. She was last recorded playing football in 2019 in the third tier, so no credible chance of ever meeting the SNG.

In terms of WP:GNG, the article uses 8 stats database references, one passing mention and an article that has one very small paragraph on her; this covers her as a 12 year old playing at a training camp. As per WP:YOUNGATH, this sort of coverage is not enough.

My own WP:BEFORE search yielded only 3 trivial mentions in squad lists: Yanki, Haberler and Maras Gundem. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails WP:GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question What kind of statement is "so no credible chance of ever meeting the SNG"? You must have an WP:ESSAY for it, right? Since the majority of TOP women's leagues are excluded from WP:NFOOTBALL, shouldn't you also add the second and third division leagues for all countries to that essay? Hmlarson (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, who cares WP:GNG takes precedence. Hmlarson (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If she were on the verge of, say, playing for the national team or was playing at a high level and had an active career then maybe this could be draftified but, since this is clearly not the case with Önal, I see little point in draftifying the article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Lévy Themans[edit]

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

If he had played in the Olympics, he'd qualify. However, searches turned up very little on this bobsledder, not enough in-depth to show that they pass WP:GNG. Right now the only two sources are brief mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". As several newspapers wrote sections of an article about him, and one article was about his withdrawal and reasing, thatç clearly more then trivial mentions. Besides of that that, it not fair using Google search as primary identification means for pre-internet people. In many cases, tehre will be offline or foreign language sources. And there would be as he is described as a successful athlete winning several competitions. Also, he is notable enough, that we almost 100 years later writing about him, for example here in 2014 and here in 2019. He was the first Dutch athlete in history that was replaced at the Winter Olympics. SportsOlympic (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nine references in the article and there will be more. Sufficient WP:SIGCOV for the WP:GNG. No WP:BLP concern. gidonb (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the post-nom expansion work. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the original two-sentence stub inspired no confidence int he subject's notability. However gidonb did a spectacular job on bringing the article to its current state. There is no question now that the sourcing supports GNG.--- Possibly (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Gazetted Officers' Union[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this is a notable union. While English sourcing isn't necessary, there's no Malayam article to draw from and a BEFORE doesn't indicate notable activities. StarM 15:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just a non notable organisations which fails NORG as well as GNG. I got some sources from Malayalam. But none of them are giving sigcov and hence not useful. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 18:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG defcon5 (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find sources. Sonofstar (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See also the precedent set by recent deletions of "List of artists influenced by X": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists influenced by Beyoncé contains a list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people influenced by Ayn Rand[edit]

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

This list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Do we really need a list of A-Z people who were "influenced" by this person? What do we mean by "influenced" anyway? Any qualitative/quantitative analysis? To what extent? Whoever claimed they were "influenced" by this person can be mentioned in-depth at that person's article without this arbitrary list. HĐ (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the policies cited and arguments expressed by nominator. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in resounding agreement by the nominator and their reasons. Timmccloud (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. If such a list is needed it can be added to her page. Athel cb (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is a better argument for deletion. This list meets all the WP:LISTPEOPLE criteria. There are sources that discuss the topic of the list; several are in the Works Cited section of the article's references. It is not at all indiscriminate: the inclusion criteria are explicitly defined at the top of the list and every entry is sourced in support of one or more of those criteria. It also ought to be obvious that stuffing a 34Kb list into a biographical article (that is already over 90Kb) is a bad idea. --RL0919 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To me the definition of "influenced by" at the top of the list comes off as WP:OR--that is a subjective opinion on what it means by "influenced by", and that is not NPOV. To note, I do not recommend merging all these names into the "Ayn Rand" article. What is the purpose of this list anyways... to prove that Mrs. Rand had such a huge so-called influence? Why isn't there an exhaustive collective of lists of people influenced by [insert name here], who have had even more reputation and recognition than Mrs. Rand (to note--this is the first time I have ever heard of her)? HĐ (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list criteria ask for the listed person's self-identification. I'm not sure how that is POV, but in any case it is hardly WP:INDISCRIMINATE as you originally alleged. There are other "influenced by" lists (as you well know, having nominated several recently). The examples that originally inspired this one were List of writers influenced by Aristotle and List of thinkers influenced by deconstruction. I did not mention these because it would have drawn the obvious WP:OTHERSTUFF retort. There are other similar non-people lists, such as Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien. I assume many of those exist for the same reason this one does: as WP:Subarticles to prevent large lists from being a nuisance in the main article. There are thousands of lists that are split out of biographical articles for similar reasons, such as the contents of Category:Actor filmographies, Category:Discographies, Category:Bibliographies of people, etc. That there are not so many influence lists is probably due to the relative ability to source the content. --RL0919 (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. As long as the list is well sourced it should stay.--Nemov (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A completely arbitrary list. "People"? Come on, what's next? List of people influenced by Jesus or List of people influenced by Muhammad? The editors probably have to create a prose article detailing how he inspired people, instead of this trivial list of names (WP:LISTCRUFT). Anyway, Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien is a prose article. Bluesatellite (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already voted I won't vote again. I'll just comment that I fully agree with what Bluesatellite says immediately above (apart from noting that referring to Ayn Rand as"he" doesn't suggest a deep knowledge of her writing). As it stands the list is very unsatisfactory in another way, that it provides no evidence that the people listed were actually influenced by Ayn Rand. I haven't followed all the links, and maybe I was unlucky, but four out of the six I checked make no mention of Ayn Rand in the linked articles. Athel cb (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list attempts to put forth criteria for inclusion, which is generally a good thing, but here it ends up being synthesis. Three different things are being called "influence"; the list is essentially putting forth a conclusion that they are equivalent. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bluesatellite and WP:SOAP. Come on, this is run of the mill. We don't even have a List of people influenced by Bertrand Russell. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kutni Island Resort[edit]

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

notability fail. CSD and prod declined. --- Possibly (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent sources to establish GNG and possibly written for promotional purpose. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 18:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 18:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG defcon5 (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty clear cut case. Additionally, the article creator has been indefed and the page has a very shady editing activity going on. --JBchrch (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCORP; the only independent source provides nothing more than a name-check. Most ten-room hotels are anything but notable, and my searches don't show this one to be an exception. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sources. Sonofstar (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Idunnox3 (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. Created by sockpuppet of ArmanAfifeh. Closure is simply because the page was deleted under G5 and does not prevent a creation of a redirect. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morteza Andy[edit]

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

The references make no mention of the player and there is nothing coming up in a WP:BEFORE search. I would expect a player playing at his level since 2010 to receive quite a lot of coverage but I'm getting nothing. Either a hoax or just a non-notable footballer that fails WP:GNG. I can't read Chinese so I am relying on translations. Please let me know if there is some good coverage in Chinese that I'm not picking up. Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not available on Soccerway, Global Sports Archive, or National Football Teams. Very likely a hoax (as a player in the Chinese 1st division or Belgian 2nd division would easily have player profiles available). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as A10 (with a mangled name and details) of Morteza Pouraliganji who is the same player. Alternatively if this is not an honest application of a nickname (+many identical personal details), then G3.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morteza_Pouraliganji: reason: It its the nickname of Morteza_Pouraliganji CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CommanderWaterford: do you have a source that "Andy" is a nick name here? It is obvious they are the same, but Morteza Pouraliganji has no mention of "Andy" and I found nothing for "Andy" searching (in Latin characters). It is unlikely to be a Farsi nickname. Maybe Mandarin or Cantonese, which is beyond my searching abilities.. Anyway, if you find a source I will support redirection.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 09:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Baldwin Jr.[edit]

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

Promising high school player, with the type of routine coverage such prospects. Being a McDonald's All-American is not an auto notability category. Does not meet WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG with non-routine coverage in the Chicago Tribune, Lexington Herald-Leader, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, The Athletic and FanSided. Sportzeditz (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sportzeditz. While I personally feel that articles on minors shouldn't really be allowed, I am not aware of any policy preventing them, assuming the minor meets GNG, ofcourse. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per sources provided by Sportzeditz. Alvaldi (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clemta[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP scope_creep^Talk 13:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no comment on notability but this reads like an advert Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, small company that does not pass GNG let alone NCORP. It does read close to an advert, to the point that my copyviodar is up.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe even speedy as advert on a non-notable startup. The first two sources are RS, but don't even mention the company name. The rest are non-RS, so don't count. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Vidyanikethan International School, Tirupati[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources giving in depth coverage to this school. Did a WP:Before and found nothing. It seems the article is written for promotional purpose when looking at its tone. Also see Sree Vidyanikethan International School. This is also about the same school.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the references in the article from what I can tell are primary and a lot are dead links. I couldn't find anything in a BEFORE except a name drop in a random article. There's nothing out there that is independent and (or) in-depth though. So, this clearly fails the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Clearly written for promotional purposes. No independent coverage as mentioned by Adamant1. defcon5 (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: I also request the closing admin to have a look Sree Vidyanikethan International School. Both are same school. I dont know the procedures to be followed in such situations. I hope this article will be also deleted. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — The Earwig (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pál Pelbart[edit]

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

Fails currently WP:NACADEMIC, given sources do only refer to him as a guest, no signs of professorship at the University in Brazil found CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A h-index of 23 is respectable for a low-citation field such as philosophy, plausibly meeting SCHOLAR#1. Furthermore, many of his top cited works (e.g. O tempo não-reconciliado: imagens de tempo em Deleuze cited by 524, Da clausura do fora ao fora da clausura cited by 367, filosofía de la deserción cited by 75) are books that given the amount of citations have been surely reviewed, so it is very likely he meets WP:NAUTHOR.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Eostrix, for this field the amount of citations is quite strong and he would pass WP:NPROF just on that and quite possibly WP:NAUTHOR on top of it. --hroest 21:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pass WP:NPROF. Sonofstar (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Arvin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, had been BLP deprodded because of his homepage, Google does not give any independent, significant coverage of himself, only listing his books CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, number of library holdings reflects that works are "well-known" (Blood of Angels, over 350 libraries), (The Wind in the Wheat, over 150 libraries), (The Will, over 300 libraries), (The Last Goodbye, over 500 libraries), plenty of reviews (some wikinotable enough for own wikiarticles) ie. for Blood of Angels: Kirkus (here), The New York Times (NYT) ((needs subscription) here), PW (here), The Denver Post (here), Booklist (here); The Last Goodbye: NYT (here), PW (here), Kirkus (here), Booklist (here), Library Journal (here); The Will: Library Journal, PW, Booklist (reviews here), Kirkus (here); The Wind in the Wheat: Booklist (here). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coolabahapple. Eccekevin (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some of the listed above sources onto the article because we do not want an article sitting sourced only to the subject's own website. There is a lot more work that needs to be done in improving the article, but Arvin does meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coolabahapple and Johnpacklambert. I've also found a cite for the claim about Gene Simmons optioning one of his books and made its wording a little more encyclopedic. Vaticidalprophet 09:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR. Sonofstar (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to History of the University of Notre Dame. Could also be merged elsewhere if appropriate/desired. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic at the University of Notre Dame[edit]

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

I do not think this topic is notable enough to deserve an encyclopedic entry. Does every large instution in the world during this pandemic need a COVID-19 impact related article? The content should instead be copied and published in the local town's newspaper or this university's newsletter and this article deleted. Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of Notre Dame. If anything this may deserve a subsection in the overall article, in case this institution has done anything special. If that is not the case, delete -- Microhierax (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Microhierax: The institution has received national press coverage for the various decisions it has made during the pandemic, as well as for the effects that the pandemic has had on the institution. There was unusually detailed reporting from national outlets on the activities of the University, including reporting from The Wall Street Journal on Notre Dame's COVID-19 protocols, a comparative analysis written in the Washington Post that contrasted Notre Dame's COVID-19 approach and that of Princeton University, an in-depth piece from the Chicago Tribune on the topic of Notre Dame's early struggles, CNN covering the decision to bring students back early, and many, many more. Do you believe that the topic has not received in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources in its own right? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's topic has in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources, satisfying WP:GNG. The topic has been the subject of coverage in its own right from many national news sources, as evidenced by the sources present and the coverage provided therefrom. These sources include CNN, The New York Times, The Associated Press, The Chicago Tribune, ABC News, The Indianapolis Star, among other reliable sources. This article obviously meets WP:GNG in its own right.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to History of the University of Notre Dame/COVID-19 pandemic in Indiana. Every university has been impacted by the virus, and so much of this is routine local news covering the goings-on like any other academic institution, for which the same can be found about the school I went to. I find it silly that it would be considered encyclopedic to include content like "Students noted that the quality of meals improved as the fall semester progressed" sourced to the student newspaper. The coverage about the president at the white house is a bit tangential and this is generally overly specific. A bit like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic in Door County, Wisconsin, we shouldn't have a separate article giving the minutiae of how they mixed in-person and online classes, something many other universities had to deal with and which were likewise covered in local and sometimes regional and national news. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reywas92: Objections to specific content does not merit deletion; if you believe that the specific content is not properly sourced, then remove it. The question for deletion is whether or not the article topic is notable. The coverage of the outbreak at Notre Dame has also been the subject of peer-reviewed academic research published by the CDC, as well as coverage by national papers (for its impact on Notre Dame's academics, student life, and its athletics).— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is way too presentist. The scope is too narrow. At most a paragraph in the article on the University of Notre Dame is merited. Not an indepdent article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you believe that the topic of the article has or has not received in-depth coverage from significant reliable sources? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not the consideration here. Not every thing that happens at a university that receives indepth coverage from reliable sources needs to be covered in a seperate article. Beyond this, I think all coverage of this subject per se fails the not news criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reywas92. I found this article about a week ago and felt inclined to nominate it for deletion, but decided against it at the time because my initial (admittedly fleeting) reading of the article's content convinced me that the university botched the response horribly. But a closer reading of the article per Reywas92's explanation now has me convinced that the article is way too specific on a topic that would normally take one, maybe two paragraphs to explain. Any relevant content can be merged to History of the University of Notre Dame and/or COVID-19 pandemic in Indiana if it's deemed notable enough. Love of Corey (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of Notre Dame. Unless the procedures taken are so fundamentally unique as to warrant independent notability (beyond what every other university has garnered for their standardized responses), an entire page is not needed. Deku link (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Indiana & History of the University of Notre Dame. This is just way too detailed and full of trivial information. --Rusf10 (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Selective Merge to History of the University of Notre Dame. While there is clearly abundance of sources, you do not see articles for every University dealing with the COVID-19 situation. A selective merging of the more important information to the History of the University of Notre Dame page would be a better alternative. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy delete as CSD G5, created by another Bikram Malati sock while an additional sock just blanked this page an hour ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bikram malati untold story[edit]

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

This does not meet GNG or WP:NF. The article was previously declined under the AFC process. The WP:PROD tag was removed by the article creator. Thehiddenworld (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Thehiddenworld (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Thehiddenworld (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: The article entirely relies on user generated, primary sources and is probably a hoax created by a sock to promote Bikram. I could not find even a single third party reliable source talking about the documentary. A sock investigation is already open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bikram malati in mb. This could be speedily deleted--either as WP:G3 or as WP:G5. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete this article About television Show on Netflix YouTube

Showmy58 i could not locate this show on Netflix. Could you pls provide a link in order for us to verify if it even exists?--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - hoax Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per CSD G3 CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matrak Enterprises[edit]

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

Non-notable ROTM tech business. Sources cover it only in the context of funding rounds, no sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

* Keep Whether a company is subjectively considered ROTM and/or the content focuses on historical business development, neither should be the sole barometer for deletion as they are opinion based. Notability and significant coverage is the benchmark here, and I would challenge that the breadth of independent and reliable citations does meet the standard. Citations include articles from the Sydney Morning Herald and Australian Financial Review which are Australia's equivalent to the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal... highly notable, reliable and independent news outlets. Considering the company is the subject matter of all citations (and not as a trivial mention), that should meet the threshold of significant coverage, satisfying WP:GNG. Granted the article could be fleshed out more, but that shouldn't mean it should be deleted entirely. — NeonRoo (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet of Hapanyc (talk · contribs). JBchrch (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Not an unreasonable position to take, by the article creator. But just so there's no misunderstanding, this AfD wasn't moved on ROTM etc. grounds; the nom clearly states that it's because the subject fails GNG/CORP notability. And 'fleshing it out more' would only help if that means adding sources that satisfy notability requirements. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the constructive feedback. I've made further improvements to this article to include additional citations that do not specifically focus on funding coverage. Although I would argue that funding coverage and business history is still information and facts that someone would find valuable. Also note that most of this article was constructed either verbatim or paraphrased from the citations with minimal editorialising to avoid a conflict of interest. NeonRoo (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: NeonRoo (talk · contribs), could you please explain what made you create Matrak Enterprises on 12 April 2021 in the first place? I am asking because before that, the overwhelming majority of your activity on Wikipedia had been the creation and expansion of Latitude Financial Services, which you created shortly after you became autoconfirmed around 16 October 2018. JBchrch (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's topic does appear to have multiple reliable sources to meet notability requirements. Hapanyc (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hapanyc (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely for sockpupettry. JBchrch (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hapanyc (talk · contribs), could you please explain what made you participate in this AfD? I am asking because the overwhelming majority of your activity on Wikipedia prior to this contribution was adding content to Titcoin back in 2015. --JBchrch (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article does feature reliable information about Matrak entreprises and is meeting the standard required in WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De Bellissen Benac Margaux (talk • contribs) 03:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet of Hapanyc (talk · contribs) JBchrch (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, we are honoured to have your first-ever Wikipedia contribution at this AfD. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the last. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the sourcing looks like a routine funding coverage, not much to establish notability of the article subject. Good to see this AfD brought some of our editors back from a long sleep. Pavlor (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a beginning of some sort of sigcov, and it could be debated whether the company as such fits WP:GNG. However, since the article was clearly written by a PR/marketing dpt, it deserves to be WP:TNT-ed. --JBchrch (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your assessment is correct. I only ask that this WP:DP discussion judge this article based on the merits of its WP:GNG / WP:CORP. If it passes, yet the content is considered WP:PROMOTION, then WP:ATD would be the appropriate course of action rather then deletion. NeonRoo (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:ATD (emphasis mine) If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Considering how the article is the written and the suspicious activity going on in this discussion, a deletion is the appropriate course of action. JBchrch (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keeping in mind that I have not stated that I believe the subject to be notable. I have stated that it is arguable. JBchrch (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. While there was some coverage of initial seed funding, it doesn't appear to be enough to create notability. - Aoidh (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo. Lots of words, with superfluous adjectives and buzzwords like "machine learning", but little substance. Even if it were notable, per WP:TNT it's more likely to reach a better article by starting over again, ideally by someone who isn't an undisclosed paid editor abusing multiple accounts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Idunnox3 (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpasa Ankita Shaw[edit]

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

Non-notable, search finds nothing beyond the usual social media and gossip pieces, no RS and certainly no sigcov. I would have requested speedy, but those minor beauty pageant wins probably amount to a claim of noteworthiness, so opted for AfD instead. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I almost nominated this one myself, but I wanted to see how others handled it. For me, it seemed like a gray area between A7/draftify/AFD. It is sourced, and the sources are completely about her so it's on its way to significant coverage. However I am left uncomfortable with 1) possible lack of independence of the pieces (could be advertorials), 2) possibility that these aren't respected WP:NEWSORGS but are instead just blogs, especially odialive.com, and 3) the WP:NOTGOSSIP nature of the pieces. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom and Novem Linguae Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BIO. Agree with others about the WP:NOTGOSSIP nature of the pieces. The mentioned beauty pageants are themself non notable. defcon5 (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her level of beauty pageant winning does not make her default notable, and we do not have substantial enough sources to justify a biography otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have prefer CSD. Sonofstar (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Greer[edit]

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

Removed CSD Tagging, clear case of WP:ADVOCACY, had been deleted several times before in the last years, the singer itself has 0,00% notability, all sources are pointing to the politics goals of the organization "Fight for the future". CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure proposer has even read the article - he originally tagged it as 'pure vandalism' and once that was removed seems to be AFDing this to make a point. What the Advocacy he claims is in the article is - I'm baffled - anyone? Subject is BLP covered in multiple independent realiable sources including The Guardian, Rolling Stone, Fast Company. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Almost the entire content of the article -- all in your words -- is about activism. "As an author, Greer has written on a range of topics including online culture and political activism." "Greer called it “an open letter to transphobes." Greer notes that 'Big Tech companies’ business models are based in surveillance, and they’re fundamentally incompatible with basic human rights and democracy." "Greer noted in interview with Fast Company it was also intended to raise aware of the control of corporations such as Spotify over popular culture." Claiming that you have no idea what the nom's talking about is disingenuous at the level best. Ravenswing 11:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

they were all added after the nom - even then WP:Adovacy is about using articles for activism not a bar on writing and quoting activist.Cameron Scott (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Describing someone's social or political positions is not the same thing as endorsing them or using Wikipedia to promote them. Of course, we have to write carefully to make sure we're on the right side of that line, but that's a matter for ordinary editing to resolve. AfD is not cleanup, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there are a bunch of sources on the page now that just mention him in comment, there are plenty of WP:SIGCOV. Article could actually be built out significantly more. Redoryxx (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I just stuck them in quickly for this AFD but will continue to build out using them. Cameron Scott (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG; the sources in the article have enough material that the article could be significantly expanded. The previous AfD's appear to be from 2005, long enough ago to be obsolete in the face of changed circumstances. Writing a biographical article about an activist isn't WP:ADVOCACY. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some quick edits for prose flow and reducing footnote clutter. The string of a dozen references at the end of the first paragraph is now down to 4, after redistributing them to places where they are more specifically relevant and removing a duplicate. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total and complete activst rubbish. He is not at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it is she or they. Cameron Scott (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Weak Delete:~~ The refbombing is insane here; this is one of the highest ratios of references to actual content I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and there is no bloody reason for twelve supporting references for a simple, uncontroversial statement of fact. Further, while the sources are reliable, I'm not sold on SIGCOV: they are interviews of the subject, quotes from the subject, or capsule reviews of the subject's recordings, none of which counts towards notability of the subject. I'm not opposed to keeping it, but there needs to be significant improvement in the article. Articles need to be created with the intent of adding valid content to the encyclopedia, rather than a sub-stub of four terse sentences accompanied by admitted reference bombing to stave off the deletionists. My mind can be changed here, but without significant improvement in the course of the AfD, it won't be. Ravenswing 20:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think now? Cameron Scott (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improved enough to no longer advocate deletion, anyway. Ravenswing 08:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean Up (significantly) - The article is a mess of shameless refbombing and hideously written sentence fragments. There is already an article for Fight for the Future so this one does not need to repeat anything about them. This article should focus on Greer's music and writing, which have gotten some reliable reviews and other coverage, and the article could be expanded with text from that coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on wide coverage and over 47,600 followers on Twitter. It does need editing, but not TNT level. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG based on amount of news coverage. We should probably improve it a bit and add an infobox. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UMTV (production)[edit]

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

Non notable production firm, no sources. Searching wider found nothing; term is more geared to the unrelated Universal-owned UMTV. Nightfury 08:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable production house with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete production firm is not notable as mentioned. Severely lacking WP:SIGCOV in sources. Redoryxx (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Microcosm-macrocosm analogy in Jewish philosophy. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olam katan[edit]

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

Contested PROD JFW | T@lk 08:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. JFW | T@lk 08:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 16:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 16:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 16:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Microcosm-macrocosm analogy: the term olam katan is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek term mikros kosmos (Arabic: ʿālam ṣaghīr, Latin: microcosmus or minor mundus, see here), a fact which is also noted in our main article on the subject. Since this concept is widely just called "microcosm" in the scholarly literature, WP:COMMONNAME would in principle call for moving the article to something like "Microcosm-macrocosm analogy in Jewish theology and philosophy". However, it is clearly premature to have a separate article on the subject specifically in Jewish theology and philosophy, when the main article is still only just giving a bare outline (including brief references to the concept in a wide variety of religious and philosophical traditions, among them Rabbinic literature and Jewish philosophy), and when after 16 years the article under discussion is still an unsourced stub . Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 12:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC) New !vote below. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 14:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have Wikipedians willing to work out and flesh out this article. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would both be possible and desirable to one day have a content fork called Microcosm-macrocosm analogy in Jewish philosophy, just like we could and ideally should have articles called Microcosm-macrocosm analogy in ancient Greek philosophy, Microcosm-macrocosm analogy in Chinese philosophy, etc. However, content forks should not be redundant, and in so far as they are, that does constitute valid grounds for deletion. The user Jfdwolff has pointed to some useful tertiary sources on the microcosm concept in Jewish philosophy, which I've incorporated into the main article. Other, more substantial secondary sources are likely to exist (notability is probably not an issue here), but anyone who is both willing and able to save this article from redundancy should also be able to add some of these secondary sources to the article. In doing this, they would be making sure that the article contains at least some detailed and well-sourced information not present in the main article, thus taking away the currently existing grounds for deletion. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 16:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC) This is irrelevant now, see below. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 16:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially a dictionary definition. We have an existing article on the actual topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. There are parallels with microcosm-macrocosm analogy but that article does not include the many specific features of the Jewish concept, such as analogies with the Tabernacle. I would reluctantly agree a merge. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the Encyclopaedia Judaica ([33]): MICROCOSM (from Gr. mikros kosmos; "small world"), term in the Western philosophical tradition referring to man as an epitome of the universe (the macrocos) in his parts and structure. The Arabic (ʿālam ṣaghīr), Hebrew (olam katan), and Latin (mundis minor) terms are literal equivalents of the Greek. Clearly not just a parallel, but the same concept in a different language. Specifically Jewish applications of the concept can be merged into the main article or stay in their own (renamed) article, but the issue is that without proper sourcing, neither merging nor keeping is a viable option. Perhaps a blank-and-redirect? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC) This is irrelevant now, see below. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 16:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've gone ahead and written a draft rewrite of the article, now fully based in secondary and tertiary sources. It also contains some sourced information about the analogies with the Tabernacle, as well as other details about various different applications of the analogy. If this rewrite is acceptable, I would fully support keeping, on the condition that the article be renamed to Microcosm-macrocosm analogy in Jewish philosophy or something similar. Jfdwolff, Yaakov Wa., Johnpacklambert, what do you think? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support new article. JFW | T@lk 09:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Microcosm-macrocosm analogy in Jewish philosophy. Articles are supposed to tell readers what they are. We should not use obscure non-English words that are not in wide use when there is a good English way to describe the contents. I am also beginning to think we need to translate Universidad de whatever to University of whatever in more article titles. I am a little more hesitant on translating colegio to college, since I even the British usage of the word college does not match the Spanish usage of colegio, although it is less different than the USA usage where college almost always refers to tertiary education and phrases like "college sports", "going to college" and "college algebra" amount many others refer to tertiary education in general. The top college sports teams are almost all at places called universities, the truly top ones almost all at places with grad schools, many of which has law, business and medical programs, and although the vast majority of college sports players are undergrad students, there are grad students who play college sports, since A-some people complete undergrad in under 4 years and B-NCAA rules allow 5 years of eligibility. OK, I have truly gone off on a tangent, but my main point is that as an English language encyclopedia we should use English in article names except where the non-English words have a widely known and accepted meaning (if Olam katan was a term used in all forms of philosophy for something specific for example). Actualy titles are a bit debatable, but we have National Autonomous University of Mexico and lots of other examples. Category:Category:Public universities and colleges in Mexico is split about half and half between articles that use English-language and those that use Spanish-lanague titles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten today and rename to Microcosm-macrocosm analogy in Jewish philosophy. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 14:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as suggested. This is a legitimate topic. gidonb (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhez Amrelia[edit]

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

Contested PROD; the article is effectively unreferenced now that the Financial Express advertorial has been removed. I could not find even one WP:RS showing WP:SIGCOV, therefore WP:GNG does not appear to be met. Some may argue that the subscriber count or view count makes him notable but there is clear consensus at WP:NYOUTUBE that this is not sufficient when the YouTuber hasn't received any significant coverage from independent sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable YouTuber with no third party coverage. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of significance and fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is enough evidence about this tech youtuber. Three legitimate references are given in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:10B:D63A:356F:9E74:5ECB:B328 (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is about a famous tech blogger based upon 7 references. This article should'nt be removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluespidey2k (talk • contribs) 08:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on 'top 10 tech YouTubers' in some blogs is not sufficient as they do not meet our WP:RS criteria or WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BASIC. No significant coverage defcon5 (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about a famous tech youtuber and deleting it makes no sense. This page should remain on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:10B:D63A:356F:9E74:5ECB:B328 (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KMP College of Engineering[edit]

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

Nothing notable found on doing a WP:Before other than the college website and some blogs. No reliable sources as well as no sigcov, hence failing GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a major college. Just another private college. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's only a single primary reference in the article and I'll could find in a BEFORE about it were a couple of worthless name drops. So, there's nothing about this that passes either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. I'd be glad to change my vote to keep if someone can come up with WP:THREE independent, in-depth references that aren't just glorified name drops though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vito Fabris[edit]

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

How is this basketballer famous? Was he in any team or was he just an ordinary basketballer? SHB2000 (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SHB2000 (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator didn't do a WP:BEFORE. Athlete meets GNG: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: he is definitely notable, CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, might meet WP:NBASKET, if he played for Olimpia Basket Pistoia during the time when they were in Lega Basket Serie A during the time he was on the team. It's difficult to ascertain since the WP article says that they were promoted in the 90s, while he played for them in the 80s, and the current source in the article is a bad link. However, that's moot, since he clearly meets GNG, regardless of the fact that the current article is poorly sourced. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No rational put forward by the nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE, and WP:DE. gidonb (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE. Sonofstar (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus across the two AfD discussions seems to be that this election is notable. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Missouri State Auditor election[edit]

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

CRYSTAL and opinion pieces used as statements of fact. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being brought up again? It was already decided to be kept. Kirby1706 (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first TAG was a PROD. This is an AfD – a different mechanism where the community will decide the article's fate, either deletion or some other solution. Reason(s) is stated above. GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first PROD was contested and the the article was immediately nominated for AfD. There was never a 2nd PROD. Kirby1706 (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge I removed the low-quality kitchen sink speculative source but this is otherwise consistent with other 2022 election articles. Rather strange that Missouri has auditor elections in midterm years but all of the other five statewise positions are in presidential years, but this could be merged to a future 2022 Missouri elections. Reywas92^Talk 22:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not because of CRYSTAL (it's well established that articles on the next elections are perfectly acceptable), but because we simply don't need articles like this. The election of the state auditor should be covered in the (to-be-created) 2022 Missouri elections (and I am aware that an article on the 2018 election exists – this should be merged with the respective equivalent). Number 5 7 11:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that this would also apply to the 2014 and 2010 election. Kirby1706 (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Crystal" is due to the speculative (unconfirmed, opinion-piece referenced) listing of possible candidates, which makes up the entire article. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There isn't much information right now since the election isn't until 2022 and the open Senate seat is getting more attention (as noted in the first AfD). There has been an article for each Auditor election since 2010 (4 total elections including this one). There are also pages for other statewide elections that don't get as much attention: Treasury, Secretary of State, etc. So overall I think the article was created too soon but will likely be recreated once the election day gets closer if deleted. Kirby1706 (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which literally has a point on exactly this. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place... If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2024 U.S. presidential election and 2028 Summer Olympics."

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual synthesis[edit]

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

Prodded by Tercer exactly as I would have written it, "Ironically enough, this article is itself a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Or it would be, if it cited any sources." My searches had a handful of hits that had these words together, but none related to the content of this article or established the subject as a cohesive topic. Reywas92^Talk 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my PROD rationale. Since it was dePRODed without any justification I have nothing to add. Tercer (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well this article is nothing like what Kant meant (Mudroch & Holzhey 2020, p. 321) harv error: no target: CITEREFMudrochHolzhey2020 (help), and Kantian synthesis shouldn't be broken down this way as Kant actually divided it up into types of synthesis in two different ways.
- Mudroch, Vilem; Holzhey, Helmut (2020). "Synthesis (Verbindung)". Historical Dictionary of Kant and Kantianism (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781538122600.
The only nailed-down concept by this name that I can find is the Kantian one. Others just aren't nailed down. And this article is no use in documenting the Kantian one. None of the content is any use, and it is at the wrong title in the wrong categories. It would all have to go. One might as well have a redlink, which we didn't know that we needed to have. ☺ Per Wikipedia:No original research, delete. Uncle G (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The PROD rationale had it right in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This at heart is approaching the whole subject as a dictionary would.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shamas ud Din Gamgeen Andrabi[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish GNG. Also found nothing on doing WP:Before . The only reference doesn't even mention the subject! Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whilst being a Sufi saint is presumably an indication of notability, I could not find anything in my WP:BEFORE search on him. The sole reference does absolutely nothing to establish notability. I'm happy to change my vote if clear evidence of notability is presented. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding (please correct me if you know more about the subject and I am wrong) is that there is no central body that declares anyone to be a Sufi saint and publishes the relevant information, such as there is with the Roman Catholic Church, but that such sainthood is just declared by a small group of followers, so I'm not sure that it's even an indication of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. In any case, there appears to be no way of verifying that this person is universally recognised as a Sufi saint. They may well have been self-appointed, we can't rule that out. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete: fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage defcon5 (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails WP:GNG. Sonofstar (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Arguello[edit]

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

Currently unsourced BLP. Looking around, I can't see much evidence of coverage - a couple of secondary sources turned up, but not ones which with compliant with BLP. His publications do not seem to be of the level to pass WP:ACADEMIC. - Bilby (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment his citations are around 1200 with a h-index of 11 in GS, so nothing really spectacular but we have kept people with much lower citations in biomedicine recently. He has three first author papers in strong journals with 100+ citations each, about what to expect for a "typical" assistant professor at his career stage. However, all his impactful work is 30 years old and in 2020 he only got a total of 28 citations which does not really indicate a strong endorsement of his work and concepts in the field. Furthermore, the article was created by a WP:SPA, probably the subject himself. PS: this is also consistent with the fact that his theory of "Atavistic metamorphosis" is not picked up at all in any scientific discourse, as indicated by only 4 citations of the book. --hroest 15:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cancer genetics is a high-citation field, so it is surprising someone who has been publishing in it for 30 years hasn't accrued much higher metrics. With a paper cutoff of 5 (which is absurdly low), here is my Scopus analysis of Dr. Arguello and his 21 coauthors + the 185 coauthors of his 3 most frequent collaborators' most recent coauthors:

Total citations: average: 7145, median: 2596, Arguello: 810.

Total papers: avg: 127, med: 78, A: 11.

h-index: avg: 35, med: 28, A: 9.

Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 648, med: 323, A: 299. 2nd: avg: 394, med 201, A: 226. 3rd: avg: 313, med: 159, A: 134. 4th: avg: 261, med: 140, A: 43. 5th: avg: 223, med: 121, A: 25.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21 coauthors + the 185 coauthors of his 3 most frequent collaborators' most recent coauthors wow, nice work JoelleJay you are really expanding the scope of this :-). --hroest 13:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Among those coauthors was the highest h-index I've come across in these analyses: Elaine Jaffe, at 151! This AfD also netted another 12 highly-cited scientists for my notable women list. JoelleJay (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay Haha, yes they can get quite high. In my field there are 3 people with h-index > 200 [34] and apparently Ronald C Kessler just pushed 300 in GS (227 in Scopus), in total there are over 80 people with a h-index > 200 in the world right now: [35]. Some of these are literally unbelievable (in the sense hard to believe), this guy has 1800 publications cited more than 10 times. I have now created User:Hannes Röst/H100 based on this list, sounds like everbody on that list should probably have an article in Wikipedia. Its also a good list to use in AfD is somebody asks what article would be notable and suitable for creation instead of a low-impact person in the field. Obviously based on Google Scholar so its a bit more shaky but generally the order should be fine. Definitely puts my own h-index into perspective... --hroest 16:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hroest If you want I can look through the people on your list and add their Scopus metrics. I've also got like 3700 people in my spreadsheets from these AfD author comparisons -- I just sorted them by h-index and there are 36 above 100. On the other hand, fields like particle physics and clinical genetics have ridiculous citation rates that might even make indices of 100+ too low a bar -- for example, I thought the physicist Claudia Patrignani would be a slam dunk entry on my list due to her 95k citations and index of 107. But then she's just an assistant professor, with 42k citations straight from 9 of the annual 200+-author Particle Data Group "Review of Particle Physics" papers. And almost all the other citations are from middle authorship on other consortium publications (like this one, with over 800 collaborators). She might still be a highly-regarded and influential scholar, but it's hard to reconcile that with her assistant professorship and her authorship position on these huge papers (although she was first-author on one of the RPP articles). Also, is any and every person on these papers actually notable? How much did each author really contribute...? JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay honestly, I dont know how high energy physics attributions really work but here clearly our WP:NPROF is failing because "high citations" for C1 is not applicable. Maybe someone with experience in the field can explain this? As far as I understand, on these types of papers really just about every postdoc and grad student who contributed to the experiment over a time span of 10,20 or 30 years is a co-author. I dont know how to deal with this except maybe divide citations up by the number of authors on a paper? There are some efforts to actually describe which author did what and many journals now require this in free text form, but I dont think anything machine readable is available. --hroest 19:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. low citations, low impact on the field in general and the person does not even seem to be active in research any more. --hroest 13:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think anyone would argue he is one of the lead contributors to his field of study broadly defined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Low impact so far. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hona Costello[edit]

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

Not notable enough. Google News search returns no article about the artist. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 07:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Side note: this article has been taken here three times (first was delete, second was softdel) so should this be salted if this one closes as delete? Remagoxer (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT to prevent persistent re-creation. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. KidAd • SPEAK 03:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still not a notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, per above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any sourceSonofstar (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all cited sources are unreliable, and there are no additional reliable sources to be found. On top of deletion, I also endorse salting. Curbon7 (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is not notable.--HunMaster (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. After extended time for discussion, there is no reasonable possibility that this will be deleted, and a reasonable argument that additional sources exist that prove notability. BD2412 T 03:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Whale[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The Encyclopedia of Supervillains is not independent, and its coverage is limited to plot summaries and occasional notes about which issue a character debuted - this type of 'fanpedia' is often less useful than our own entries or most fan wikis.Other than that we have few mentions in passing that he appeared in a TV series. No coverage I see goes beyond plot summaries and mentions of 'appeared here or there'. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. Tobias Whale is the archenemy of Black Lightning like Lex Luthor is to Superman. As for one of those references you stated, one of them was added by @Toughpigs: to help out the page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Rtkat3, The difference is Superman is quite famous. BL is much less so, before his recent TV show he was pretty much a nobody, and even know most people are 'wait, who?'. Anyway, it doesn't matter whose archenemy he is, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wondering if the nom actually did those google searches mentioned? a / b / c / d / e / f / g / h - Some talk about the tv show character. but they also talk about the importance of the character in comics as well. Kinda surprised to see this listed, actually. - jc37 02:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jc37, And which of those sources goes beyond a plot summary and/or a note that he has appeared in the TV show? Still no WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, they do actually. But I've already read them. I'll give you an opportunity to read them so that we can discuss them, and your belief that this article page should be deleted. - jc37 14:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus, one thing that I feel should be said, and I was going to mention this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Republic (Star Wars) (2nd nomination) before it was closed, but your standard for "significant coverage" is frankly much higher than almost everyone elses. In the aforementioned AfD, you attempted to handwave several reliable sources away as fancruft sources (including The Hollywood Reporter, Wired, IGN, and Vox) and you have been known to dismiss sources that discuss characters from a real world perspective in non-trivial detail as "All plot" because they have plot details in them (unavoidable for any fictional character) or for subjective reasons like not having enough academic importance (which is not required by WP:SIGCOV). "Significant coverage" means that a topic is covered is significant detail, not that it's existence cured cancer or something. Dark knight 2149 04:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Darkknight2149, SIGCOV states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". Examples given are one sentence - not enough, and one book - enough. What we have here is few sentences here and there, mostly plot summary, catalog entries on 'appeared in this book' or press release 'will appear in this TV show'. Given what the policy says and its spectrum of sentence-to-book, are my expectations of at least a paragraph of analysis too high, or are the standards of some people here too low? Shrug. It is obvious that regardless of what the policy says, I am in a minority here, and perhaps WP:IAR does support overruling of policy in such cases, but at the very least I don't believe I am the one who is ignoring what the policy states. And if there is a repeated consensus SIGCOV needs changing, perhaps with the statement "two sentences are sufficient", feel free to propose a change to its wording. Anyway, back on subject at hand. Only two sources above ([36], [37]) seem to approach SIGCOV, most are pure noise (plot summary/press release and their rewrites) and waste of our (reading) time. Given that they are heavily based on WP:INTERVIEW and relate only to the TV version of the character, I am still not convinced the subject is notable. Not that it seems to matter, my dissenting opinion is clearly in the minority. So be it. Maybe this topic will be revisited in another decade, as our standards are tightening. Or maybe we are reaching an equilibrium and such articles will be considered fine forever (and also, more sources may be found in years to come). Shrug. This was borderline and needed a discussion, that's all. PS. I'll note that despite all the comments 'he is important', nobody has yet bothered to add a reception section to the article. Until this is done we can't even justify removing the {{notability}}... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I only looked at the first 2 sources provided by @Jc37:, and there's enough analysis in there to easily pass WP:GNG. Discussion of the origin of the character from the creator and looking at his place as an albino, going beyond plot. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough information and analysis of the TV version of the character to pass GNG in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A recurring character in numerous adapations and media; there's plenty of detailed coverage and so WP:GNG is satisfied. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the existing coverage and the criteria outlined at WP:GNG. Dark knight 2149 04:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been improved and notability established. (non-admin closure) Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ATLAS Forward Proton Project (neé FP420 experiment)[edit]

It was original prodded by Tercer (talk · contribs) with the rationale "No information can be found about this experiment, probably it just didn't happen or was renamed. In either case, having an article under this name is pointless."

I have undone this, basically because there is plenty of information about the project (e.g. [38]). However, Tercer is right that this project seems to be one that fizzled out, or was never carried out.

So I'm putting this up for AfD instead. Sources are weak/all primary sources, but maybe some more digging can find what happened to it, or if it's just one of many projects that never took off. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is now called the ATLAS Forward Proton Project as given at ATLAS experiment#Forward detectors?
The first phase of the installation (AFP220) is planned for the long LHC shutdown starting in 2012. […] The second phase (AFP420) is more complicated from the technical point of view, because 420 m is already the LHC cold region and to install the detectors one needs to interfere with the machine liquid helium system.
— (Staszewski 2011, p. 5)
- NEAR stations installed just before COVID-19 lock-down (Mar. 2020),
- installation of FAR stations postponed to Summer 2021(travel restrictions).
— (Trzebinski 2021, p. 4)
- Staszewski, R. (April 2011). "The AFP project". Acta Physica Polonica Series B. 42 (7): 1615. arXiv:1104.1858. doi:10.5506/APhysPolB.42.1615. S2CID 118158814.
- Trzebinski, Maciej (2021-03-14). "Overview of ATLAS Forward Proton Detectors for LHC Run3 and Plans for the HL-LHC". CERN.
- Liu, Jesse Kar Kee (2021-01-25). "Overview of AFP performance". CERN.
Uncle G (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, my PROD rationale was unclear, I meant that no current information can be found about FP420, the original sources are dead links. There's an almost 4-year old tag in the article asking what happened to it. I thought PROD was well-suited, because if anybody knows what this experiment is they could just contest it and add the information. Now Uncle G managed to find out, it was indeed renamed to ATLAS Forward Proton Project. Tercer (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The rational wasn't unclear, I just disagreed with PROD as a process to handle something unknown. Uncle G's finds are great, and exactly what I was hoping to trigger with an AFD. Still haven't made my mind about a keep vs merge, but at least now we know what happened to FP420 and can make an educated decision. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ATLAS experiment#Forward detectors. This is a design study for a detector that hasn't even been built yet. After it gets built and produces results there will be enough information to write a sensible article about it, in the meanwhile coverage within the ATLAS article will give it better context and will be more likely to be properly maintained. Tercer (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been producing results since 2017.
  - The ATLAS collaboration (2017-07-05). "Proton tagging with the one arm AFP detector". CERN. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2017-012.
  - Aad, G.; Abbott, B.; Abbott, D. C.; Abed Abud, A.; Abeling, K.; Abhayasinghe, D. K.; Abidi, S. H.; AbouZeid, O. S.; Abraham, N. L.; Abramowicz, H.; Abreu, H.; et al. (2020-12-23). "Observation and Measurement of Forward Proton Scattering in Association with Lepton Pairs Produced via the Photon Fusion Mechanism at ATLAS". Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (26): 261801. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.261801. PMID 33449771.
- Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 420m detectors have been cancelled, but sure, the redesigned experiment was built and produced results. Tercer (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ATLAS experiment#Forward detectors. Internal infrastructure isn't worth having a separate article about; it makes more sense to describe this in the article on the ATLAS experiment itself, and split it off in the unlikely eventuality that there's so much to say and so many non-internal sources that a separate article becomes preferable. XOR'easter (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the enthusiastic expansion by Uncle G, now there is material for a sensible stand-alone article. Tercer (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep The expansion mostly by Uncle G at special:diff/1015890700/1015986485 is substantial and establishes WP:N. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. XOR'easter, this is not "internal infrastructure". This is the process of cutting edge experimental physics. Wikipedia covers theoretical high energy physics and the standard model and lots of speculation thereon in great detail. All that would be nowhere without the experimental science and engineering that goes into the enormously complex and expensive accelerator facilities providing the data. Wikipedia covers experimental high energy physics poorly. We don't even have categories for the colliders and detectors. This is like covering space exploration without having articles about rockets and satellites. The technical details in those innumerable rocket and spacecraft articles don't come from the daily papers, they come from the agencies responsible. It will be the same way for high energy physics experiments. This article is an important subtopic of the Large Hadron Collider whose discoveries are covered in every media outlet on the planet. The technical details will come from the papers that report the science and engineering that creates the experimental facilities. We need more of these articles. More could be split out from the ATLAS experiment and more could be written about older experiments. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even after the expansion, this seems more like a merge than a keep-separate situation to me. The content is fine, but it appears at the moment to be better used as part of a larger whole. XOR'easter (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amanwil Weliam Del[edit]

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

Found no indication this model passes any notability guideline. Sources used within the article are mostly primary, merely stating he was at X or Y show. A further search yielded no significant coverage. PK650 (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This was next on my list to nominate myself. Mccapra (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I said when I prodded it, a working model, but searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I could not find a single IRS via a search on the ProQuest database of Australian and NZ newspaper articles (broader and deeper than Google). Fails WP:GNG]. Cabrils (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON, as he seems to be at the start of his career, and thus WP:SIGCOV isn't there yet. We've deleted lots of male model articles. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Wilde (CTO)[edit]

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

BLP about a person whose claim to significance is that they are “one of the pioneers of the digital nomad lifestyle for tech workers.” This is pretty nebulous and the sources demonstrate that she has not achieved notability for it. The rest of the article is just background info and some non notable awards. Mccapra (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article creator is an SPA who attempted to get this through AfC back in 2016 and failed. Mccapra (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to show that she meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsubstantial promotionalism. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devoke water 09:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firoz Kunnamparambil[edit]

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

This was deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firoz Kunnumparambil very few days back with everyone voted as delete. Now it has been recreated again, this time with slightly changing an alphabet. This is an example of WP:GAMENAME. Requesting for a speedy deletion. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:G4. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 06:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gpkp, I actually wanted to put this for CSD under G4. But when I nominated a similiar article like this for G4 (created by same user), it was repeatedly removed by several IP's. So I brought it here. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask for WP:SALT at WP:ANI, in such cases. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete : because this person notability, public

Figure & and leading famous indian philanthropist and he also indian politician from Indian National Congress And He also social worker / social activists and he also charity worker, and he also business man, CEO and Founder of PK PERFUME and FIROZ KUNNUMPARAMBIL FOUNDATION (Non-profit organization)

Links below https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/kerala-elections-2021-candidate-watch-for-firoz-kunnamparambil-winning-an-election-wont-be-as-easy-as-doing-charity-with-peoples-money-1.1616960361732

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/kerala-social-worker-calls-woman-prostitute-fb-lands-trouble-110632

https://malayalam.oneindia.com/news/malappuram/firos-kunnamparambil-congress-candidate-in-thavanur-vv-prakash-in-nilambur-283729.html

https://www.facebook.com/FirosKunnamparambilOfficial

https://malayalam.news18.com/news/kerala/who-is-firos-kunnamparambil-129357.html

https://fk-perfume-firoz-kunnamparambil.business.site https://www.zaubacorp.com/company/FIROZ-KUNNAMPARAMBIL-FOUNDATION/U85300KL2020NPL064053

02:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC) User:Msp7com

None of those are notability claims that guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia. People are not automatically entitled to have articles on here just because they have jobs — getting into Wikipedia is a matter of achieving distinction, not just of being verifiable as existing. Politicians get articles by winning election to, and thereby holding, a notable political office, not just running for one — and neither philanthropists nor businesspeople are automatically notable just because they exist, either. Just existing is not automatically enough in and of itself: the notability test requires much, much more than just stating and verifying that he exists as a person who has had jobs. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't making any stronger case that he would clear our notability criteria than the first version did: it isn't making any significant notability claims beyond the fact that he exists, and it isn't citing anything like the correct depth or volume of sourcing to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. Clearly promotional defcon5 (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete this article not promotional article, then this person also famous

philanthropist and charity worker from kerala,India. read > verified social media profile https://www.facebook.com/FirosKunnamparambilOfficial. i strongly support this article, he also popular politician from Indian National Congress In Kerala India, Most valuable candidate of Kerala Legislative Assembly Election 2021 in Tavanur Constituency Then he also business person and Founder of famous Charitable organization

https://www.asianetnews.com/local-news/election-campaign-poster-for-ldf-independent-candidate-includes-pinarayi-vijayan-and-firos-kunnamparambil-qkjs4k

https://www.manoramaonline.com/news/latest-news/2021/03/17/thavanur-constituency-udf-candidate-firoz-kunnamparambil-interview.html

https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/kerala-elections-2021-candidate-watch-for-firoz-kunnamparambil-winning-an-election-wont-be-as-easy-as-doing-charity-with-peoples-money-1.1616960361732

https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2021/apr/06/firos-kunnamparambil-gets-death-threats-over-phone-udf-files-plaint-2286323.html

Upcoming Firos Kunnamparambil based malayalam movie https://www.asianetnews.com/entertainment-news/firoz-kunnamparambil-responds-to-mayakottaram-movie-qjbtxy

User:Msp7com 08:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suspect this person has used this article to get his social media account verified (the previous deleted one). I also doubt Msp7com has any personal connection or paid agreement with Firoz. Because they seems to come here only for showing some unuseful sources and claims (eg:claims like his facebook ID is verified) rather than engaging in a discussion. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no financial dealings or business with it, the person mentioned in this article is a well-known philanthropist and charity activist in Kerala recently. In Kerala, he is gaining a lot of popularity in the news media and among the general public A political leader is a politician, This article has been added for free, but he is not my client. You can improve this article or section by expanding it In addition, you can check whether this article complies with the Wikipedia policy, as well as the information currently provided by the Internet and News‌ Let's talk more Reminds. me again The person mentioned in this article is not my client, as I am not a Wikipedia data entry professional

thanks Kichu🐘 .

User:Msp7com12:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Msp7com, now you have my respect. This is the proper way to engage in a discussion. And let me say one thing. Popularity has nothing to do with notability. I would like you to go through WP:GNG as well as WP:NPOL. Firoz does not meet any of these. Im also a person from Kerala and I know this person. Charity has nothing to do with notability. I hope you know about Bobby Chemmanur. Does he have an article? And why did you create this article under different name, which was just deleted few days back. That is a violation of one our policy and you should not do it again. Any way, good luck with your article. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

commentKichu🐘

I thought you were living in a Kerala. I also know about Baby Chemmannur He is a charity worker, and he is also a well-known businessman.Now the person in this article may be the person you discussed earlier, he is not only a charity worker but now he is also the Kerala Legislative Assembly candidate of the Indian National Congress. I hope you know about the Kerala Assembly elections in 2021. Kerala is the most talked about constituency in the Tavanur Constituency where he contested. The result is due on May 2, 2021. I hope to continue with this article without deleting it until then, or if he wins that election he will get the MLA office which will lead to him getting the Wikipedia notable label. User:Msp7com 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Msp7com participants in election are not inherently notable. Do you remember that I moved two of the similiar articles into draftspace, which was created by you. But you moved it again back to mainspace which forced forced to nominate it for AFD. I had no other option. Because I kindly told you to wait until May 2, but you didnt had any patience. Thats the same thing happened here. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. He's gone through bad times and succeeded in spite of it all. That sounds like a million other people. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep particularly given the sources provided by Pawnkingthree and potential for expansion of what the consensus views to be a notable subject. — The Earwig (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Steel Chess Tournament 2020[edit]

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

The tournament itself is notable, but which policy justifies having a dedicated, stand alone page for the list of participants and results? This article seems to fail WP:GNG. Dutch wiki page is no better. Ditto for other entries at Template:Tata Steel Chess Tournament. Existence of such 'sport statistics' referenced solely to the some database or official, non-indepent sources is a major problem. Shouldn't this all be merged to the main article, or maybe to some list? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kasparov described the 1999 edition of this tournament as "by far the best tournament in my life", see Hoogovens Wijk aan Zee Chess Tournament 1999. That quote, and a visual reflection of his game against Topalov in that tournament, would have gone unnoticed if there hadn't been a separate article on the 1999 edition of this event. The main argument is therefore: to give more in-depth knowledge about this tournament. The second reason is that the main article (Tata Steel Chess Tournament) was getting too crowded, with 80% of the article consisting of crosstables (still visible in the article, as 2002-2018 have not been separated yet). Moreover (3): the (now 20) articles per year have just started, and could be expanded with examples from striking matches, photographs, diagrams etc. Fourth argument: separate articles on chess tournaments per year are not uncommon on Wiki: Zürich 1934 chess tournament & 1953; Vienna 1908 chess tournament & 3 other years; Carlsbad 1929 chess tournament & 3 o.; London 1899 chess tournament a.o., just to name a few). Vysotsky (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Vysotsky, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a classic argument not to use... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely the policy (well, guideline) is WP:DETAIL. There have been 82 editions of this tournament, it would not be practical to attempt to cover all of them at the main article. This is a valid subarticle. This is one of the most notable chess tournaments and there is certainly enough coverage each year to meet GNG. Wijk aan Zee is the "Chess Wimbledon"; we wouldn't expect the tennis version to contain details of each tournament at its main article.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pawnkingthree, "there is certainly enough coverage each year to meet GNG". Great. Can you show which sources contain such coverage? None have been presented here nor added to the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - [39][40][41][42][43] [44] I'm still mystified as why you chose to nominate a recent edition the most prominent tournament on the chess calendar for deletion.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pawnkingthree, The first ref doesn't mention this tournament at all. Do the others? If your first ref is irrelevant to the topic, why should I spend my time checking others? But I checked the second one. It discusses "Tata Steel Masters 2020" not "Tata Steel Chess Tournament 2020". Is it the same entity? Ditto for source three, which mentions " 82nd Tata Steel Tournament". At best, this is such a niche event that sources can't even agree on the right name. And nobody added any refs to the article. All this indignation about "it's obviously notable", yet sources to support this claim are still at zero. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course the first ref is relevant. "Tata Steel Wijk aan Zee" is an alternate name for the tournament (like how the All England Tennis Championships is also known as Wimbledon) as you would know if you had done the simplest of WP:BEFORE searches, as you are required to do. P-K3 (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is detailed and would make a great subarticle. Cupcake547^{Let's chat!} 17:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
- Cupcake547, It's just a table, not an article, sub or anything. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant a table, but it's still detailed and I would still keep it. Cupcake547^{Let's chat!} 14:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    - I would keep it also because it is very notable as an event. Cupcake547^{Let's chat!} 20:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Snow keep. Extremely notable under the WP:GNG! Please stop making this daily round, AfDing regular, notable topics for deletion, then arguing under the opinion of each and every person who disagrees with you. It creates unnecessary havoc and distraction from constructive WP work. Create an AfD only when you have a strong case, not to ask a policy question! Positively put, kudos to hewiki and to User:Yoavd for creating an in-depth discussion of this and all other chess topics! The enwiki article can be expanded using the hewiki example. gidonb (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: failure to do a WP:BEFORE here. See above for sources, and a Google News search within the date range of 2020 shows waves of Chessbase, Chess.com and Chess24 coverage—more than enough to justify the reasonable-length table listings currently in the article. — Bilorv (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Yoavd (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tata Steel Chess Tournament. Though this may be a notable chess event, I don't believe that this year's tournament (and the others in the template) need to have their own articles, as they are "routine" yearly super tournaments. There is nothing about this year's tournament that was specifically notable and the crosstable of the players can be merged back into the main article (unless an event was particularly notable in the Chess world or wider world). Alternatively, since users are concerned about the size of the main article, there can be a list article of the results of the tournaments, List of winners of the Tata Steel Chess Tournament. Natg 19 (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sneeuwvlakte, Greenman, and Icekolobok:, who also participated in a similar discussion here. Natg 19 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Pawnkingthree. The article is very unclear when you put all the tables on one page. It could be an option to tell more about the background from this tournament edition. Sneeuwvlakte (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do think their is potential for this article to expand and with the references that has been given by Pawnkingthree. Basically what I am saying here, is to expand and not delete here. HawkAussie (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE is been missed by the nominator. Sonofstar (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Białecka[edit]

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

Young musician, no awards, very poor notability (sources mostly not independent or not meeting WP:SIGCOV; the best in-depth source is WP:INTERVIEW is a regional Polish newspaper [45]). Unreferenced trivia/bad style details like "she is a PhD candidate in music theory at Frederic Chopin University of Music, where she also teaches from 2021. Her doctoral supervisor is Professor Katarzyna Szymańska-Stułka." suggest possible COI. My verdict: sadly, the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Let's discuss. PS. Deletion discussion on pl wiki (might be helpful for some findings/new refs): pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2021:04:12:Magdalena Białecka. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:COI is involved: the creator is an old-timer in Polish Wikipedia, so I think the article is bona fide, created in plwiki, I suspect, within the framework similar to our WP:Women in Red. I do agre notability is questionabe: it looks like there are more google hits for a gynecologist with the same name. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Level 3 (TV series)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG TipsyElephant (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll do a search in a bit, but I find it hard to believe that a television series with over 200 episodes which ran for six years doesn't meet GNG. I suggest that the name of the show is what caused issues searching. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SMH mention for instance. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This would seem to fall into the category of the media not covering itself (or its competitors) very well. Perhaps Lee Vilenski can uncover more like the above, but I believe that this meets the spirit of what is laid out in WP:NTV having aired on a network of stations reaching a pretty big region of Australia getting to both Melbourne and Sydney. -2pou (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Intergang. The general consensus was a redirect into Intergang (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 18:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whisper A'Daire[edit]

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

Prodded with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." PROD removed with no meaningful edit summary, Here we go again. Ping User:Commander Waterford who expressed interest in this article. Please note that the The Essential Batman Encyclopedia is neither independent, nor quality (a review noted: "Entries are limited to characters and information within the Batman universe. This focus on characters and internal plot may be fascinating to fans, but will limit the book's usefulness as a research tool"). The entry in that 'fanpedia' (it can be seen here) is short and 4-paragraphs long (just happens to be split over two pages) and does not go beyond plot summary; the only out of universe fact it mentions is in which comic issue she made her debut. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nom has summed it up perfectly. Fails all of the criteria for notability. Fiddle Faddle 08:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Intergang under it's membership section like we should've done with Kyle Abbot. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to League of Assassins as I believe that is her first and primary team affiliation. Rhino131 (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Regarding redirecting, I'd suggest List of DC Comics characters: W. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The topic lacks any substantial reliable third party sources. TTN (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Intergang per Rtkat3, since the character's most noteworthy appearances in the comics appear to be within that faction. Haleth (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Intergang: Per nom and reasoning provided by others. Definitely fails GNG and the membership section of Intergang seems like an appropriate place to go. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn with the discussion leaning to keep. De728631 (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wessex Society of Newfoundland and Labrador[edit]

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

non notable organization. I declined the AfC for this; the editor User:HeritageNL, rearranged the sections, added a paragraph sourced only tot he groups own minutes, & moved it themselves into mainspace. The one good reference is about someone associated with the organization. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are several good references there. The unfortunate thing is that they are supporting content that is not about this subject, and are mainly about Newfoundland English. Fortunately, our article on that is not apparently in need of them. Others are about Otto Tucker and about a Trinity Trust. The sources supporting the stuff that actually is about the article subject are by Otto Tucker or from the organization itself. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added citations for two secondary source articles about the society, cleaned up the article a bit more. Thanks for your suggestions! --HeritageNL (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Newfoundland and Labrador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I checked all the sources with links. This source appears to pass WP:GNG and may pass WP:CORPDEPTH. There are also around a dozen other sources that didn't have links, and need a more thorough verification process such as by using WP:RX. This kind of research should be done in draftspace by an AFC reviewer, where there isn't the one week time limit of an AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
tracked down another secondary source on microfiche about the formal chartering of the organization, added note and citation to article. HeritageNL (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added URLs to citations where they could be found, changed inappropriate citations to secondary sources where possible. Remaining citations without URLs seem to reference print-only sources. HeritageNL (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple secondary sources added, flow of article improved somewhat. HeritageNL (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- HeritageNL, I took a look at your new sources just now. I judge these 4 to be the best: [46][47][48][49]. Some are borderline for various reasons. Second opinion on these sources anyone? Do they pass GNG? @DGG and Uncle G: Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just barely encyclopedic . Ref 1 is by far the only really usable source, but it might be enough However, most of the material in the articles is local or organizational detail, such as a list of speskers, that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia . . I'm withdrawing the AfD, and will remove most of section 2. after thisis closed. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With all the Keep votes coming from socks, there is clear consensus it should be deleted Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Nied[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable teenager. There is some coverage, but not enough; the "non-profit" is all local human-interest coverage, and the Virginia Beach Neptune Festival incident would be BLP1E. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article should be kept because of numerous articles in Virginian-Pilot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocean11s (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC) — Ocean11s (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Struck. CU-verified sock of 360nosc (talk · contribs), please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/360nosc. --Blablubbs|talk 23:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !votes, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/360nosc --Blablubbs|talk 23:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep: This Article should be kept for the help with positive changes the the Neptune Festival and contribution to environmental changes

Keep: This article should be kept because of the amazing work Planting Shade is accomplishing

Keep: This article should be kept because of the great app, HeyyyU, that helps young adults

Delete - very likely undisclosed paid-for spam, given the sockpuppetry and promotion. We should not reward behavior like this. MER-C 14:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hawaii Rainbow Wahine softball. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Wahine Softball Stadium[edit]

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

Non-notable college venue. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Whether it's notable enough for its own article is debatable, but the information definitely should be merged somewhere, possibly to the university's athletics page. SportingFlyer T·C 12:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hawaii Rainbow Wahine softball, while I did find some coverage in a search, I feel this could be better covered at the article for the team. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of live chats[edit]

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

As with most articles of this type, it's OR/SYNTH/INDISCRIMINATE and is not appropriate for Wikipedia - if someone wants to compare these products, they should be looking at an industry mag or something, not here. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom about WP:OR. I get a "somebody's notes" vibe from this rather than an "encyclopedia article" vibe. Also, the maintenance burden and verifiability burden of a page like this is concerning. The languages, pricing, and free trial durations probably change frequently. In contrast, a bulleted list of notable live chat systems would be acceptable (and already exists at Web chat). –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Reminds me of a less soapboxy version of the life spans of home appliances article which was deleted for similar reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Web chat#Web chat software as preferred WP:ATD. I agree there is too much detail. ~Kvng (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a WP:OR case-study which contains nothing of encyclopedic value and is based entirely on primary sources. We're not a manual or user guide or something like that. And do not keep the redirect per WP:PANDORA as it would not be a helpful title. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pepperwood Grove, California[edit]

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

Another Lake County locale with a lack of info. In this case it is heavily masked in searching by the far more famous coast redwood grove. What's there is a line of houses by Clear Lake, piers across the road extending out into the water. It doesn't seem notable. Mangoe (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That might be because, once again for GNIS, the coördinates are wrong, like they were for Acodale, Virginia (AfD discussion). Bing Maps has the actual Pepperwood Grove about 1km further north at 39°03′59″N 122°46′53″W / 39.06639°N 122.78139°W / 39.06639; -122.78139, which is just one digit different (a 5 for a 2) from the GNIS data, and which has inland streets. I found a book (Donoghue 2003, p. 24) harv error: no target: CITEREFDonoghue2003 (help) stating that this was a CDP in 1990, population 661, distinct from Lucerne to the north, which makes it odd that Rambot (talk · contribs) and Ram-Man (talk · contribs) never gave it to us; unless it had stopped being a CDP by 2000. If it was in the 1990 census, it could probably be expanded, like Lucerne, Lake County, California in fact was.
- Donoghue, Ellen Mary (2003). "Appendix". Delimiting Communities in the Pacific Northwest. General technical report PNW. Vol. 570. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. doi:10.2737/PNW-GTR-570.
Uncle G (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's decidedly odd, because the reason GNIS puts the spot where it does is because that's where it is on the topos, whereas the spot by Lucerne is never labelled, though it certainly would have been far more likely to have had 661 residents than the GNIS location. I'm not sure what to make of Donoghue's paper. For one thing, it doesn't give any locations, and for another, it is not at all clear how the various places listed actually appear in the 1990 census. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it's not all adding up for me, either. Bing Maps sources from here.com and several other data scrapers do the same, with a pin for the GNIS location and the actual map showing the name to the north. At the The National Map, USGS topographic maps say one thing, USA topographic maps say another. I checked local newspaper the Lake County News, but that couldn't even decide whether it was Pepperwood Grove, in official releases, or Pepperwood Cove, in other reporting. And the road sign south of the settlement with the streets says "Welcome to Lucerne". This is hopeless. We don't even verifiably know where and what this place is, let alone have a decent source for in-depth information on it. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think the paper necessarily supports that it was a CDP. The Pepperwood Grove mention in the paper is in a list of block group aggregations, which is defined in the PDF as The approach was developed to provide an alternative to more commonly used geographic delimitations of communities, specifically census places. It was designed to represent a greater percentage of the rural population than would be represented by using census places So I'm not sure that Donoghue is necessarily supporting that this has official recognition, although I may be misreading this. Newspapers.com brings up a reference to an illegal cow slaughter at a "Pepperwood Grove area" in Mendocino County, as well as the redwood grove and a lot of hits for a brand of wine. 1978 Lake County flood insurance document only mentions Pepperwood Grove as appearing on a map, well south of Lucerne. My rural internet is crapping out again, so that's the end of my searching on this for awhile, but I'm not seeing notability here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Found this, related to modern air quality alerts, but I'm going to have to say delete on this one. There's just not enough clear coverage about this to even began to attempt to write a verifiable article. FWIW, the news article I linked includes a map that shows two Pepperwood Groves. As it stands, this is just a mess with verifiability issues. Hog Farm _Talk 01:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. I also found hits in newspapers.com for wine and a location in Humboldt County. JSTOR returns four articles, one about mayflies, one about wine, and two that mention the location in Humboldt County. GBooks returns hits for wine and the location in Humboldt. Searching GBooks for ' "pepperwood grove" lucerne ' returns fewer hits, all of which are trivial. I did not find anything that indicates that this locale is a CDP. As this locale has no legal recognition and at best very trivial coverage, neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND are met. Cxbrx (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Clear Lake Oaks. MBisanz ^talk 14:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Lake Keys, California[edit]

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

Another Lake County spot about which there is little information. The only things I could find were a reference to it as a large marina subdivision, and its POA. It exists, but there's not enough about it to make it notable. Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do we consider these sort of GNIS entries "maps and tables" like WP:NGEO excludes? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 02:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We consider them significantly problematic, per Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data and Wikipedia:WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force. That's why a group of people is systematically going through them checking them against things like books on springs and 19th century resorts of California, Arcadia Publishing local history books for various parts of California, and so forth. Sometimes it is a Robert, California (AfD discussion), sometimes a Rice Fork Summer Homes, California (AfD discussion) an Ettawa Springs, California (AfD discussion) or even a Mount Hannah Lodge, California (AfD discussion). This is the situation that mass article creation from GNIS data has put us in, and that's just California. Virginia has a bunch of articles that are probably about marker trees that used to be used for land surveys of people's properties. Then there's the rest of the United States, then tens of thousands of articles for Iran and Azerbaijan from GEOnet. Uncle G (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you seious about Virginia and marker trees? Wikipedia has clearly valued quantity over quality way too much for way too long. This is a problem on hundreds of fronts, and it is so daunting that it seems as if there is no progress being made.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find this in three Arcadia books. Clearlake Oaks, California is the actual place according to Erwin Gustav Gudde's 1962 book on California place names. What little I've found is that this is a marina developed in the 1960s by one Marvin T. Levin … according to Marvin T. Levin in a self-help book. It is not independently documented in depth. Uncle G (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no evidence that this place is in any meaningful way a community.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Clear Lake Oaks, of which Clear Lake Keys is a sub-component of. While Clear Lake Keys certainly exists in the sense that looking at a map it's pretty clear what the name is referring to, it appears to be a subdivision of Clear Lake Oaks, which is a "populated, legally recognized place" per WP:GEOLAND notability clause. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SixWeeks[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT - mild local/narrow news coverage at the time, but web search finds no lasting impact. Found no mentions since this took place, either for the project or its creator. Unlikely more can be added to this article beyond the project's own webpage. HalJor (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This source was the only significant coverage I could find. Fails WP:GNG. I also find the WP:NEVENT/WP:NOTNEWS argument convincing. This seems like a click bait, pique your interest type story that isn't particularly encyclopedic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a way to create a pseudo-biography on a narrow part of a life that is trying to avoid directly confronting the fact the person in question is not notable by masquerading as being about an event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Sherinian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not any RS. All sources are a casual mention or no mention at all. Likely COI from page creator. Igorikrasti (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Igorikrasti (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one reference in the article is significant coverage, and it was likely written based off a press release. WP:BEFORE not turning up quality sources. Fails WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing does not show that Sherinian is a notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT - it's an article about a PR person, totally sourced by press releases. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian genocide legal case[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTNEWS. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me if replying off my talk page. Thank you. 01:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me if replying off my talk page. Thank you. 01:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me if replying off my talk page. Thank you. 01:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not even sure what this is about, or on what grounds to object to it, but I do know it clearly has no place in an encyclopaedia. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This poorly-written article looks like it needs a WP:TNT. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for the comments, removed most of the wordiness.Mm319 (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems a violation of WP:BLPCRIME (none of the individuals have been convicted yet. In fact, AFAICS, the case is still pending and hasn't even begun) and likely WP:TOOSOON. If and when this gets additional coverage, it might warrant re-creation. But not for now. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smash Our Stuff[edit]

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

While notability isn't temporary, I can find no evidence that the coverage this received was significant, or independent. Some posts remain online, and it's more amused notice rather than discussion of what they were doing or why it was significant. The prior AfD had trouble finding a consensus for notability when this was at peak interest, and I can find nothing new that would establish subsequent notability. StarM 21:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky... Definitely tough as the more reputable sources are hard to come by 15 years later. There was some cable soft news coverage back in the day, but it's all but evaporated. I'd lean towards delete, but feel like this may be biased b/c it wasn't sourced well when we had more available. T (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage I've found which is not dead yet - The Globe and Mail, Cnet, Cnet, Cnet (Cnet is considered reliable), Metro, which is considered unreliable per WP:RSPSRC, MacDailyNews (cites the first one), Engadget, Engadget, Engadget, Bloomberg (under subscription), The Times (under subscription). I believe it's enough to meet WP:GNG. I will add the sources to the article. I understand the nominators concern, as the 'movement' seems to fail WP:EFFECT and be rather sensational, however legal actions taken against the activists (lets call them so) made it impossible for them to continue. It's my opinion and may look like OR, but we can't forget about this leverage. Moreover if the activity made companies use such means of protection, this shows the possible influence such actions could have had. Less Unless (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After spending more time with the topic - i still couldn't find any sources that would back the statements about lawsuits and some details only an involved person could know. The information can be reorganized - I still believe the article should be kept.Less Unless (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus of no notability Nosebagbear (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haste (band)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBAND. The article currently cites no reliable sources. I can't find any significant coverage or any other indication of notability. The record label they apparently released on is virtually unknown and I can't find evidence that they played with Dirty Rotten Imbeciles as the article claims. Lennart97 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, unknown garage band. Searching is incredibly difficult due to the simple band name and the simple album titles. I could barely find anything about the band aside from discogs, bandcamp and this. Even if they played with DRI, that is not an indicator of notability. So yeah, definitely a non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find anything about the band from reliable sources. Article is mostly unreferenced and includes Facebook and Bandcamp as sources Mukedits (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hen House Studio[edit]

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

This article concerns an alleged recording studio in Venice, California which I believe fails the general notability guidlines. The article cites four sources, two of which are dead links. The other two are (1) a link to an Amazon album that was allegedly recorded at the studio and (2) a short bio and collection of videos staring the owner of the studio. These do not constitute "significant" coverage in my humble opinion and BEFORE searches do not return any other coverage of this studio that could be deemed significant. Finally, at least a portion of the article appears to have been written by someone with a COI, so I think that also weighs in favor of deletion, though that is not the reason I am nominating it.

Also, I recognize that this is OR and arguably not relevant to this discussion, but I tried to locate the studio today IRL to take a picture of it for the article and the studio no longer appears to be at the location included in the article, having been replaced by offices for an electric car company. So I also think that raises verifiability concerns about this article as well. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NCOMPANY the studio has simply not received coverage as an entity in its own right, and I can only find minor press releases and the company's own promotional materials. Per WP:NOTINHERITED it is not notable because some notable musicians recorded there. Also note that there is an unaffiliated studio called Henhouse (one word) in Nashville. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough news coverage to meet notability. Peter303x (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Speedily closed for procedural reasons. It is clear that there will not be consensus to delete the article. People disagree about whether a merger is appropriate, but that discussion, per WP:MERGEPROP, belongs on the article's talk page, not at AfD. Sandstein 14:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daunte Wright riots[edit]

As a pretty ardent inclusionist, I find myself nominating an article for deletion for the first time. At this point, there is no rational reason to have a separate article on the unrest that has followed the killing of Daunte Wright. The scale of the unrest is easily covered in Killing of Daunte Wright without need for a separate article that repeats the same information. Moncrief (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For some reason the link in the AfD banner is linking to the Tyson Walker discussion. Is that something someone else knows how to fix? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DS (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - There's no reason right now to think these protests/riots are going to stand out like the Ferguson unrest did. Love of Corey (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There's no reason not to believe that, and besides "not standing out like the Ferguson unrest" is not a WP:DEL-REASON. Kire1975 (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge small article to killing of Daunte Wright per WP:CHEAP, but do not delete the article history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to ~~2020–2021 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial justice protests#Daunte Wright riots and looting, April 11–ongoing~~ Killing of Daunte Wright. I don't know if I would characterize this latest incident as a riot yet, for the most part there was some looting to local businesses that happened in Brooklyn Center and in parts of Minneapolis per media reports [50] [51] [52] [53] but not as widespread or destructive as last year. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given everyone elses comments I am changing the target for merge/redirect to Killing of Daunte Wright. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge...for now — It should simply be merged now, but, if the rioting continues and escalates, we should consider recreating it. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 00:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Killing of Daunte Wright, with some content probably also going to the Minn. protests page. "Daunte Wright riots" does not yet seem likely as the WP:COMMONNAME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefangledfeathers (talk • contribs)
Keep - has enough coverage in reliable sources to merit an article. Juno (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Killing of Daunte Wright per nom.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No one has cited any actual reasons for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON. It is a developing story getting worldwide coverage in reliable sources, Killing of Daunte Wright is already 10K+ characters in less than 48 hours. Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH, very long articles should be WP:SPLIT. Kire1975 (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Killing of Daunte Wright and keep the current coverage in one article. There may come a time in the future when there may need to be sub-articles but initially putting everything in one place will make it easier to divide an article up later, if it gets too big, rather than having to merge everything first and potentially lose key information. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to killing of Daunte Wright. Premature split from a still short article. There's already misplacement of info, such as protesters in San Diego "called for justice and police reform," which I don't think anyone classifies as a riot, only on wiki in this article. - Featous (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking, per move of page to Daunte Wright protests, which expands its very narrow previous scope, and also the expansion of the two articles, per Tvc 15 below. - Featous (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has developed better, and protests have expanded to other cities, suitable to keep separate for now. Albertaont (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to killing of Daunte Wright—the circumstances are much different than the previous summer's events in size and a full page may be yet unwarranted.
Merge to killing of Daunte Wright as this article is mostly just disaster porn without any historic context and background for the unrest. 156.98.136.27 (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the 24–48 hours since the pages were created, Killing of Daunte Wright is 30K+ characters and Daunte Wright protests is 20K+ characters, as of this writing. This page is already long enough to warrant a separate article from Killing of Daunte Wright, being 2/3 of its size, and is likely to continue to grow as a developing story covered in reliable sources. Tvc 15 (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Within only 24 hours, the page is already comparable to Breonna Taylor protests, which was created six months ago. Tvc 15 (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to killing of Daunte Wright Elishop (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to killing of Daunte Wright – these demonstrations don't have anywhere near the scale of the George Floyd protests. Songwaters (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - With respect, that's like saying a large lake should be deleted because it's not the size of the Pacific Ocean. Kire1975 (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to killing of Daunte Wright. All relevant information can be accommodated in that main article. WWGB (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the nominator, please let me know if I need to change the name of the title of this page, now that the title of the article has been changed. Or feel free to do what's needed, if you know what's needed -- assuming anything more is. Moncrief (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a pretty lengthy article covering a very newsworthy event ImYourTurboLover (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to vote Keep on my own nomination, but I will say that this article has improved considerably since I nominated it for AfD, and the name change has also helped. I would not be sad if it were kept, or I also heartily endorse merging. I sheepishly wish I had let my usual inclusionist side come to the surface this time too, and avoided a straight AfD when this article was in its infancy. Moncrief (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At this current moment, in my opinion there has been enough to warrant this being an individual page. Jmchugh131 (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AFD was premature. Kaldari (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources cited in the article and the protests receive front-page coverage in many non-US media. The notability criteria are clearly met.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is long enough that it's reasonable to be split from the original, and the protests alone are notable, warranting an individual article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with expanded scope. A large enough separate topic to warrant its own article. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough as a separate topic, and the article has enough information now.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sufficiently well developed to stand on its own, merge targets are long enough to make maintaining separate articles reasonable. --Jayron 32 10:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article has been sufficiently well developed to stand on its own, and there is too much significant material here for merging. Both the protests and their fallout continue, as does their coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://books.google.com.ng/books/download/Nominal_List_of_Practising_Librarians_in.ris?id=Y8HgAAAAMAAJ&output=ris

[1]