Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 19 April 21 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) gobonobo + c 00:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of Luxembourg[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources discuss the subject. Ardenter (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Does 'only public research university in the country' ring a bell? Literally anything fitting that description will have sufficient coverage. Like here, or here, or here, or here, or here...I didn't even bother to look at scholarly results. Vaticidalprophet 01:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are those reliable? The first is a review. The second is a passing reference, which doesn't meet notability guidelines. The last two are from a hotel. The third is the only reliable source, That's not multiple reliable secondary sources. Ardenter (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also ISBN 9781857434583 page 1383. There are not the hundreds of years of history to be found documented here, as is the case for a lot of universities, though. But the OECD does document this institution in depth, giving it four pages discussing its mission and faculties, with some additional commentary, in chapter 4 of ISBN 9789264017795 pages 150 et seq.. Pretty much none of that is in the article at hand, so there seems to be scope to expand this stub. Uncle G (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that 9789264017795 counts as a reliable source, as its a directory. As far as I can tell 9781857434583 is, but it's not in depth enough to make an article. Despite 9781857434583, I still think it doesn't have enough sources to be notable. Ardenter (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • An OECD review of Luxembourg innovation policy, covering this instutition in detail and others in the context of how they fit into that, is not a directory in any shape or form. You are quite obviously reaching, perhaps because the source is in French and you did not actually read it and plucked a plausible sounding reason from thin air. Uncle G (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wait, I mixed them up while typing them. 9781857434583 is a directory of universities and 9789264017795 was reliable. Ardenter (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is nothing about being a directory that makes a source reliable or not. Some directories are reliable (such as this one), some are unreliable and some are in between. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wasn't talking about reliability as a standard when I discounted X, I was referring to it being a trivial mention. "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement... inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria (i.e. attempt to include every existing item instead of selecting the best, most notable examples), such as databases, archives, directories, dictionaries, bibliographies, certain almanacs." - Notability (Organizations and Companies) Ardenter (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Anyone can read that you said "I don't think that [...] counts as a reliable source, as its a directory". How can you now claim that you weren't taking about reliability when it's there in black and white? How can we have a proper discussion when you deny writing what everyone can see that you wrote? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I was using "reliable source" as shorthand for writing "significant independent reliable source"? Ardenter (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No, you were discounting something based upon its title rather than actually reading that source too, which is an overview of the higher education system in Luxembourg that talks about the Université de Luxembourg. Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per above. Atchom (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Suonii180 (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep. No, we are not going to delete the wiki of the main public university in Luxembourg. JBchrch (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as included in this discussion and the article. Clearly passes WP:GNG. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you show those reliable sources? I read the article thoroughly, most citations were from the university itself or from a top universities list, which is not reliable. Only one of the articles posted here would be counted as a reliable source per Wikipedia's policies. Ardenter (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you miss all of the articles from the english language news site of the main broadcaster in Luxembourg? SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • But none of those count as sources. Sources need to be more than a passing mention. Most were about a project the university was involved in, and the ones that did mention it did not go into significant detail. None meet the guidelines for reliable sources. Ardenter (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • They are definitely reliable sources. Please explain how the RTL Today sources that are already cited in the article, that have the name of the University in the title, and only discuss the university are not significant coverage? SailingInABathTub (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Lets take a look at the first five titles from that link. "Minister of Education Claude Meisch to hold press conference at 2 pm". "How did senior citizens cope with the first months of the pandemic?" "Study confirms that French remains the most required language in Luxembourg". "Scientific topics made accessible in new comic book". "Student for One Day" initiative held in Luxembourg this year". Are these covering the university itself, which is required for significant coverage? Ardenter (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are just presenting me with straw man arguments. My view is clear, let consensus decide the matter. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Alright, but can you tell me how I was strawmanning you? You said these articles were reliable sources with significant coverage, so I gave a sample of them to demonstrate my point that they were only trivial mentions. Ardenter (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • 1. You said "I read the article thoroughly, most citations were from the university itself or from a top universities list, which is not reliable." - You ignored all of the reliable sources in the article.
                  • 2. You said "Most were about a project the university was involved in, and the ones that did mention it did not go into significant detail." - You ignored the fact that there are nearly two hundred University of Luxembourg articles on that site - many of which do have significant coverage.
                  • 3. I referred you to the sources in the article itself that contained significant coverage (now copied here).[1][2][3][4][5] You ignored them again, and instead picked out five that did not contain significant coverage.

References

  1. ^ "Virtual open days for the University of Luxembourg". RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg. April 9, 2020. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  2. ^ "University of Luxembourg switches to remote teaching for one month". RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg. October 26, 2020. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  3. ^ Gautier, Nadine (April 11, 2021). "University of Luxembourg will remain closed until the end of the academic year". RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  4. ^ "University of Luxembourg among the world's best 250 universities". RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg. September 3, 2020. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  5. ^ "Shanghai ranking places the University of Luxembourg among the 700 best institutions in the world". RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg. August 18, 2020. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
                  • SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Firstly, the idea I "ignored" reliable sources in the article. I checked all of them. Let's go through every single one.
                    • 1 - One sentence in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
                    • 2 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
                    • 3 - University itself. Not independent, does not meet standards.
                    • 4 - University itself. Not independent, does not meet standards.
                    • 5 - University itself. Not independent, does not meet standards.
                    • 6 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
                    • 7 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
                    • 8 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
                    • 9 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
                    • 10 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
                    • 11 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
                    • 12 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
                    • 13 - University itself. Not independent, does not meet standards.
                    • 14 - Rankings. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
                    • 15 - Rankings. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
                    • 16 - Rankings. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
                    • 17 - Rankings. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
                    • 18 - Rankings. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
                    • 19 - RTL article that does nothing more than say the university was high on these lists. Does not meet standards.
                    • 20 - Rankings. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
                    • 21 - RTL article that does nothing more than say the university was high on these lists. Does not meet standards.
                    • 22 - Rankings. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
                    • 23 - University itself. Not independent, does not meet standards.
                    • 24 - Article about a random person who happened to be affiliated with the university. Does not meet standards.
                    • None of these demonstrate reliability.

                      Secondly, you said there are two hundred articles about the university on RTL. But that is completely irrelevant if they are trivial. The number of sources does not matter. I read all the pages, and I couldn't find anything that demonstrated notability.

                      Thirdly, I did not "pick out" sources without significant coverage. Those were the first five articles from that search. You also said I ignored notable articles I sent you, but all you did was give me a link that referred me to a sea of articles that met no guidelines. If you wanted me to see the notable articles, tell me their names.

                      Lastly, all the RTL Luxembourg articles.

                      The notability rules for organizations and corporations explicitly state:

                      "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization."

                      Sources 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are all short articles about the university's COVID-19 restrictions. That does not meet notability requirements. It might be fine for an article about COVID-19 response in Luxembourg, but it does not justify an article about the University of Luxembourg itself.

                      The last one that can be justified is 2, a "Knowledge Bite" about higher education in Luxembourg. But it does not meet those requirements still. It gives basic information about the university from its website and gives a one sentence review. That does not make "it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization."

                      Thanks, Ardenter. Ardenter (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • … or read the sources cited in this discussion, or indeed do any research at all yourself, in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy? Thorough efforts to find sources must have failed, which you cannot honestly say if you made no effort at all. Uncle G (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But how does it do so? Significant coverage has not been demonstrated. Ardenter (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Public research university. Silliest nomination I've seen in a long time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing has inherent notability on Wikipedia, regardless of its status. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#No inherent notability. Ardenter (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • To counter this, please read WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR! We are building an encyclopaedia to aid knowledge, and being pedantic and "rules"-obsessed does not help that project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I feel is common sense is removing a poor article which has too little reliable sources to demonstrate its significance or make the article verifiable. Ardenter (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, that is not common sense. Notability and verifiability are both attributes of article subjects, rather than of the current form of articles. Please just stop arguing with everyone and look for independent reliable sources yourself, without pre-judging any sources found to necessarily fail our requirements as you have done so far. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did look for independed reliable sources before submitting the AFD and I have prejudged no sources. Ardenter (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously notable per the "keeps" above, but it would be nice if people recognised that notability is just as obvious for an equivalent university in Africa, Asia or South America. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Public research university, easily passes WP:GNG. Note the many RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg articles! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - that this is the only public research university in Luxembourg surely makes it notable. Rollo August (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not. No organization is notable by default. Ardenter (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, not that it's needed as there is consensus, but my source analysis is below:
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
#1 Encyclopaedia Britannica Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN A single-sentence mention in an article about the communications of Luxembourg.
#2 RTL Today Question? Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Question? 2 paragraphs + 2 sentences in an article about all higher education institutions in Luxembourg.
#3 University of Luxembourg Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Information about the university, on its own website.
#4 University of Luxembourg Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Information about university governance, on its own website.
#5 University of Luxembourg Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Information about the university rector, on its own website.
#6 RTL Today Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An article about several Luxembourg schools suspending classes.
#7 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about an open day at the University of Luxembourg. Provides details about the university's courses and current teaching arrangements.
#8 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about the University of Luxembourg switching to remote learning. An announcement, with further information about the spread of coronavirus at the university.
#9 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about the temporary closure of the University of Luxembourg. Provides information about the closure of the university and its impact on staff and students.
#10 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about video surveillance at the University of Luxembourg. Reports on concerns raised about video surveilance of student's exams at the university.
#11 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article the University of Luxembourg temporarily deciding not to use video surveillance. With an analysis of the announcement.
#12 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about the University of Luxembourg re-opening. Reporting on the COVID-19 precautions that the university will take.
#13 University of Luxembourg Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN 'Facts' about the university, on its own website.
#14 Times Higher Education Magazine Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An overview of the University of Luxembourg, along with the subjects taught, key statistics, and an independent comparison with other universities.
#15 ShanghaiRanking Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An independent comparison of the University of Luxembourg with other universities, no detailed analysis.
#16 Center for World University Rankings Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An independent comparison of the University of Luxembourg with other universities, no detailed analysis.
#17 Times Higher Education Magazine Duplicate of #14
#18 U.S. News & World Report Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY A detailed independent comparison of the University of Luxembourg with other universities, including individual subject rankings.
#19 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about the University of Luxembourg placing on The Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings 2021. Reports on scores in different categories and comparisons with previous years.
#20 ShanghaiRanking Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An summary of the site's ranking of the University of Luxembourg since 2017, with no detailed information or analysis.
#21 RTL Today Question? Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Question? An article about the University of Luxembourg placing on the Shanghai ranking annual list. Reports on the University of Luxembourg's scores in previous years but mainly talks about Shanghai ranking.
#22 Center for World University Rankings Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN A summary of the University of Luxembourg's statistics on the site, no detailed information or analysis.
#23 University of Luxembourg Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Information about a notable professor at the University of Luxembourg, on its own website.
#24 World Bank Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN A biography of a notable alumni of the University of Luxembourg.
Total qualifying sources 9 3
There is significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject

SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a disruptive nomination. There is plenty of coverage in multiple independent sources, and even if there werent it's important for the encyclopedia to cover universities in small countries and that outweighs other considerations. Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three things. Firstly, how is it disruptive? Secondly, I do not believe there has been plenty of coverage. And thirdly, this discussion is about whether the university deserves its own article. If you think it's important to education in Luxembourg, then add it to Education in Luxembourg. Ardenter (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some disagreements with your source analysis:
    • 14/17 and 18 are listed as passing the trivial mention, but by Wikipedia policies they should not pass. Examples of trivial mentions in Notability (Organizations and Companies) state "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in 'best of', 'top 100', 'fastest growing' or similar lists," and "inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria (i.e. attempt to include every existing item instead of selecting the best, most notable examples), such as databases, archives, directories, dictionaries, bibliographies, certain almanacs." THE University Rankings and US News & World Report meet both criteria, as such is not a reliable source.
    • 19 is a bit more of a grey area, but I think it is definitively not significant coverage. All it discusses is the review scores other resources have given the university, and not the university itself. It also is little more than a parrot of trivial mentions.
  • Another thing which applies to both is the counting of "simple listings or compilations, such as... of statistical data." Therefore, 14/17, 18, and 19 are all trivial.

    Now, I'm going to bring something up that's important to notability.

    "'Source' on Wikipedia can refer to the work itself, the author of the work, and/or the publisher of the work. For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple". A story from a single news organization (such as AP) reprinted in multiple newspapers (say, in the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel) is still one source (one newspaper article). If multiple journalists at multiple newspapers separately and independently write about the same subject, then each of these unrelated articles should be considered separate sources, even if they are writing about the same event or "story". A series of articles by the same journalist is still treated as one source (one person). The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher). Similarly, a series of books by the same author is one source."

    All of the RTL articles would be only one source. That's not to mention that they cover one aspect of the university's policy, which (though debatable) is not enough to establish the university as notable. Based on established, clear-cut Wikipedia policy, there is only one counting source of the twenty.

    Thanks, Ardenter. Ardenter (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, quick question, how do you believe consensus has been reached? The consensus policy states that "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". We're still discussing, so I don't see how this has been reached. Ardenter (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ardenter: Please consider that the notability requirement for public schools and universities is WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and only for-profit educational institutions are required to satisfy WP:ORG as commercial organizations, according to 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.

    • Here's the description of the WP:GNG notability requirement for significant coverage: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
  • So there are multiple reliable secondary sources where the coverage of the University meets GNG requirements, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, which it turns out is available in English; and the RTL Today news coverage, as well as the Times Higher Ed Ranking piece. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ardenter: Please consider the amount of editors' time that has been wasted by this vexatious nomination. The nomination should be strong enough to stand, without multiple explanations. One bite at the cherry should be enough. Other editors may like to consider how our rubric may be strengthened to prevent this massive misunderstanding. ClemRutter (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subject has received substantial non-trivial coverage, thus satisfying GNG requirements. WP:AVALANCHE applies as well. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:22, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Celebration[edit]

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

Had been DEPRODed by the creator, No signs of sufficient notability per WP:NSONGS, all sources found self-published and/or unreliable CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Neither the song nor the rapper have received any notice beyond self-created streaming entries and directory listings, and even those are rare. This may be eligible for Speedy Delete per WP:A9 because the article makes no statement of importance for the song, and the rapper does not have an article of his own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per user above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the song has received a lack of significant coverage and it is a stub anyway --K. Peake 20:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This is definitely some random kids' song they made on a DAW for a buck and uploaded to Youtube, and Lazabot's only creation is this page, indicating he made the account only to publicize it on this website. I also have no clue how this song has an Album of the Year page.... with two user ratings! Totally wouldn't be surprised if this was a WP:PROMO article. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesnt't meet criteria for notability. Webmaster862 (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:A9. The article does not indicate why the subject is notable and the artist's article never existed in the first place. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:46, 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. Hog Farm Talk 23:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Catalonia[edit]

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

A Coat of arms of Catalonia never existed per se. There was a coat of arms of the king of Aragon, already covered in another page, and there is a modern Seal of the Generalitat de Catalunya, already covered in a third page. The coat of arms of the king of Aragon was, as all medieval symbols, exclusive of the king and his lineage. The different territories ruled by this king, of which Catalonia was just one, had no special symbol back then. In the 19th century, Catalan nationalists adopted the colours of the coat of arms, the so-called four bars, as symbolic of Catalonia, and it has become ubiquitous ever since for all things related to Catalonia and even for the Catalan language, including the aforementioned Seal of the Generalitat. However, the mere existence of a page for the Coat of arms of Catalonia implies that the particular link between the heraldry and Catalonia already existed before the 19th century, and that is simply false. Jotamar (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 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. Sandstein 07:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin's Soviet Elections (1936-1950) and Impact[edit]

Stalin's Soviet Elections (1936-1950) and Impact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This basically appears to be an essay (a poorly-thought out subject from Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Miami/History of Communism (Spring 2021)), with nine of the sixteen references to other Wikipedia articles. We already have an article on Elections in the Soviet Union that could cover this topic. Article was prodded, but prod removed with no explanation given. Number 57 21:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article on Election in hte Soviet Union could indeed cover the topic, but it's a very brief stub. Some material here could be merged as a start as some of it is documented outside WP , but even better someone could write an actual article. There are abundant references available in English ()and of course other languages) DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I genuinely struggle to find a single sentence that is useful; the content is written at a standard lower than my expectations of a junior high school student (and I attended high school in the southern USA for a period). In addition to the USSR elections article, there are also individual articles for the 1937, 1946 and 1950 elections. *However,* there is RS historical literature on elections and the Stalin period (some examples[1][2][3][4]), so the topic itself is notable, but even the title of this article is entirely inappropriate.

References

  1. ^ Carson, George Barr (1955). Electoral Practices in the U.S.S.R. F.A. Praeger.
  2. ^ KOGAN, MICHAEL (2012). "SHAPING SOVIET JUSTICE: Popular responses to the election of people's courts, 1948-1954". Cahiers du Monde russe. 53 (1): 121–139. ISSN 1252-6576.
  3. ^ Getty, J. Arch (1991). "State and Society under Stalin: Constitutions and Elections in the 1930s". Slavic Review. 50 (1): 18–35. doi:10.2307/2500596.
  4. ^ Jessen, Ralph; Richter, Hedwig, eds. (2011). Voting for Hitler and Stalin: Elections Under 20th Century Dictatorships. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-3-593-39489-3.
I've never previously recommended a TNT before at AfD...but there's always a first time for everything. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page has been written for a current educational activity and so deletion would be disruption contrary to WP:BITE. The topic is clearly notable as Soviet elections during the Stalinist period are the subject of study and analysis in papers such as this and books such as that. The nomination says that "Elections in the Soviet Union that could cover this topic" but that other page is a weaker effort than the page in question and so has failed to do so. Our policies are clear: Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome and If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline – it is a scorched earth policy of total annihilation. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's necessary to keep it for the student to be marked, it can be move to draftspace or back to their userspace. As per Goldsztajn's assessment, the article is awful and we should not be keeping it in mainspace just so someone can get graded on it. Number 57 11:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the article in question is not awful. It explains the topic reasonably clearly in sections starting with the 1936 constitution, details of the voting process and the results of the three elections. It's better than the nomination's preferred alternative Elections in the Soviet Union. It's the nomination which is awful because it does not provide a policy-based reason to delete. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Elections in the Soviet Union, with corrections. Having a separate page for "Stalin's elections" is hardly justifiable because Soviet elections after Stalin were not very much different, although yes, there are sources on Soviet elections specifically for this period. I do not think the deletion would be proper because the provided info is basically correct, but, yes, the page was apparently written by a student. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, an essay of 90% unreliable sources. No idea why some editors think that just because it was perhaps made for educational reasons it should be kept. Calling nominating an Article for deletion as disruptive editing because it bites in their opinion new Editors is absolute nonsense. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix it, but yes, this content can only be merged to another page. I moved a part of the content. Now this page should be made a redrect. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Except for the fact that the title violates multiple elements of WP:TITLE, eg NDESC (how are these elections in the possessive ownership of Stalin?), LOWERCASE, PRECISION (impact of what? on whom? what of Stalin's <sic> 1931 election?) etc. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The content has already been merged to Elections in the Soviet Union by My very best wishes. The article under discussion is now a WP:REDUNDANTFORK with a title that is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article or even a redirect (not a plausible search term, see also Goldsztajn's comment above). Attribution for copyright purposes per WP:Copying within Wikipedia could trivially be done by listing the authors in a dummy edit over at Elections in the Soviet Union, so there is no need to retain the edit history here. To wit:
    • The text was written by Md188.
    • Arjayay removed a duplicate word.[1] I'm honestly not sure if this needs to be attributed.
    • Goszei did some minor formatting fixes.[2] I'm honestly not sure if this needs to be attributed.
    • My very best wishes copyedited the text before merging.
    • The rest of the edits were things that did not get merged and which therefore do not need to be attributed, if I understand things correctly.
Deleting the article without leaving a redirect (whether the closer calls this "delete" or "merge") should not be controversial. TompaDompa (talk) 23:31, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armaan Franklin[edit]

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

There are a number of references about Armaan Franklin but all of them appeared WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:NCOLLATH, no major winning or participation. Chirota (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the SIGCOV found by Alvaldi, particularly the SI article which is the most independent and NCOLLATH-relevant of them (the others are more local or deal with his being a high school prospect). JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep USA Today and si.com are major publications that have in-depth covertage on him. Webmaster862 (talk) 04:56, 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 redirect to Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Delhi Sikh Gurudwaraa Committee Election Results[edit]

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

Can't see how this is a notable election. Number 57 13:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I am Confused. I think this is some sort of convocation to elect the religious leaders of the Sikhs, but it's unclear. In fact, it is so unclear and cluttered with lists that it might be a case of WP:TNT. Please fix this mess. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Mccapra -- Manasbose (talk | edits) 10:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect An extremely detailed page for an election for a specific cause with only 450,000 eligible voters (pretty low by Indian standards). The specific issue is not notable for a stand alone page, though it gets domain specific media coverage. Roller26 (talk) 14:51, 24 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kodak Photo Printer 6800[edit]

Kodak Photo Printer 6800 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub article apparently based entirely on a press release. Notability (or lack of it)- no evidence that this specific printer is especially notable in its own right (we don't tend to have individual articles for other manufacturers' printers either).

Despite having been created over 15 years ago, the core article remains almost identical to the original stub- nothing of note has been added since then, and likely never will.

(There are quite a few subsequent edits, but virtually all are administrative, or minor changes like corrections or adding links).

Ubcule (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not every model of printer is notable. We need something more than a press release on the product to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A corporate press release predicting the future is both a biased and non-factual basis for an article. Surely, I thought, there is proper independent documentation talking about this subject in the past tense, as it has been 17 years since the projected release date. After some research, it appears that there is not. I couldn't find anything to even use for a good stub on this, let alone one with scope for expansion. Book mentions turned out to be "printing process B is used in printers M, N, O, and P". There's no indication of computer magazine articles, let alone in-depth ones. And that seems to be true of any Kodak printer, excluding obvious recycled press releases. This is non-notable as clearly shown by it not having been been noted in its lifetime or since. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough.Pancho507 (talk) 11:05, 24 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 bus routes in London. Since List of bus routes in London already mentions this route, I'm just doing a redirect. If you need article history or anything just ask. Missvain (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 82[edit]

London Buses route 82 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just like most London Buses routes, this is another run of the mill bus route with nothing overly notable nor spectacular. Only ounce of notability is that it is a recently discontinued route. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like most London bus topics, this is notable per WP:GNG, as London buses are historic and well-documented. The nomination is based upon WP:MILL which is neither policy nor guideline. It's just an essay which means that it has "no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". Per WP:CENSOR and WP:NOTPAPER, we do not delete pages for this reason. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most London bus routes are not notable, and those that two are covered thoroughly using independent secondary sources. You have not provided anything additional to what exists in the article to validate notability for this particular route. Ajf773 (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CENSOR applies to controversial topics. Is a London bus route controversial? WP:NOTPAPER also explicitly states "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." Also, notability guidelines state notability is not inherited. Being a part of something notable does not make something else notable. This is a discussion not for the London bus, but this specific bus route. Ardenter (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, merge or redirect. Just like with every other nomination of this type, there is never a good reason to delete an article about a verifiable bus route in a major city. If it isn't notable enough for a standalone article (which some bus routes are) then it should be merged or redirected to an appropriate higher-level article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the reasons are that the route is not notable, as are most bus routes in a major city (including this), then delete is plausible. You mentioned an alternative is to either merge or redirect - to where? Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that if some bus routes in London are notable (which they are), the bus network as a whole is notable (which it is) and there exists a list of bus routes in London (which there does) then all the bus routes in London are likely search terms and so the title should not be a redlink meaning that deletion is off the table. WP:ATD also strongly favours merging and redirecting over deletion in situations like this. List of bus routes in London is the blindingly obvious target, but there may be others. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of bus routes in London as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 21:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a discontinued route. If it's not notable there is no requirement to mention it. Ajf773 (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that these routes should be mentioned, given that the purpose is to provide encyclopaedic coverage of the subject not a travel guide. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per user:Andrew Davidson Lilporchy (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG, no one here has actually presented significant coverage in reliable sources to prove otherwise. SK2242 (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant sources have been given that establishes any sort of notability. For a route that existed from 1986 - 2017 you would certainly expect something better than maps and road changes. Given the route isn't mentioned at List of bus routes in London I see no point redirecting there as no "defunct routes" exist (nor should it!). –Davey2010Talk 13:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should such a list not exist? Defunct routes (or at least ones with some degree of longevity) seem to be an equally encyclopaedic part of the coverage of buses in London as current ones do. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because defunct routes aren't notable and it would set a precedent that this material should be in articles when it shouldn't. Readers wanting that sort of material can always hop over to Wikia or whatever it's called. –Davey2010Talk 18:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a list of current bus routes is a notable aspect of buses in London, and notability is not temporary, then why are former routes differently notable to current ones? Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an arbitrary fact, routes 10 and RV1 are defunct and still have articles. However I'm not debating those there, just route 82. Ajf773 (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such a section did exist until deleted in September 2019 seemingly without discussion or an attempt to addresss issues. Have partially reinstated. Lilporchy (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Either all London bus routes are notable or none of them are. Only nominating one makes no sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true. While most are completely non notable, there are a few exceptions, ie London Buses route 11. Otherwise you have given no clear reason for keeping. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Bus routes in London. Pretty much every one has an article. Procedurally, it makes no sense whatsoever to only nominate a single one. I tend to agree that most of them aren't notable, but nominating them piecemeal is not the way to change that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Necrothesp: what are you talking about? those are just the ones that haven’t been deleted yet. There are over 500 routes in London. SK2242 (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes more sense to nominate each one individually than every single one in a group. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't researched the subject at hand, but Thryduulf's reasoning is sound. Those are the choices, that's one of the purposes of redirects, and this is not a bus route directory where we only list things because they exist now. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm getting rather tired of these discussions where deletion is called for but an obvious redirect target is available. Just redirect it if it is not notable, and if that is contested discuss it on the article talk page, rather than start an attention-seeking deletion discussion, and leave deletion discussions for those articles where an admin needs to hit the "delete" button (something that I was shocked to find a few months ago that many people don't understand to be the purpose of AfD). Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing 'attention-seeking' about this. AfD's have been used for at least 50 other bus routes in London and dozens more elsewhere. They are necessary sometimes to solve such disputes. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ajf773, On the one hand, AfD is not (and has never been) Articles for Discussion, so you should not open the debate unless you think deleting might be a satisfactory outcome. On the other hand, other avenues such as Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers sit for ages without much feedback, so AfD can be chosen in order to get a better and quicker feedback - which can be done per WP:IAR, if there is sufficient agreement it is a sensible idea. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those saying merge, there is nothing really to merge as the List of bus routes in London page now mentions the route (alongside a few discontinued routes), the same as it does all other 500 routes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 29 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 Wipeout (2008 game show). (non-admin closure) gobonobo + c 01:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games based on Wipeout (2008 American game show)[edit]

List of video games based on Wipeout (2008 American game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list is comprised of only eight entries and no signs of getting any more. Not big enough to be its own list. Should be deleted or merged back to Wipeout (2008 game show) Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC) In addition, Not enough to meet WP:CONTENTFORK or WP:SPINOUT in my humble opinion.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Not yet commenting on the content of the article, but Blue Pumpkin Pie, "only eight entries" doesn't sound like a policy-backed rationale for an AfD. I suggest you amend your nomination to explain why "only eight entries" must mean an AfD for this list. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Honestly this could have just been boldly done. Not enough content to warrant a size fork. -- ferret (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per above, is relatively minimal and best documented as a brief subsection of the parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it would be better to build out a franchise article for the game show, Endemol Wipeout, where the videogame list can reside, instead of placing it into the 2008 game show article. Split out the international versions, sequels, reboots, adaptations from the 2008 article, into the franchise article. The franchise is owned by Endemol, and there are multiple TV game show franchises called "Wipeout", so Endemol Wipeout would seem to be the best name for a franchise article. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and others. This table does not need its own article. IceWelder [✉] 09:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per all of the above. ♦ jaguar 10:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Verifiable but not notable. Archrogue (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for all the reasons outlined above. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:55, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyburn String Quartet[edit]

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

Unsourced, seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage of this quartet. The Royal Academy of Music's John Baker award they've won doesn't appear to be a notable award. Lennart97 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I couldn't find anything substantial either. Aza24 (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Their website is dead and the most recent thing I can find about them is a YouTube video Wikipedia won’t let me link to of them playing at a local festival in 2014 so they seem to have had a fairly short existence (5-6 years). No recordings I can find. There are mentions of them being “highly acclaimed” in programmes but I don’t find any examples of that acclaim. There are lots of student/postgrad bands that do some gigs for a while and then break up. I looked for sources on the individual quartet members and found Katie Littlemore - nothing. Charlotte Skinner - professional violinist whose profile doesn’t mention the quartet (this was a clincher for me). Sophie Broadbent - credits as a session musician. Zoe Marshall - music teacher profile that briefly mentions the quartet but significantly, refers to venues not events. No notability I’m afraid. Mccapra (talk) 05:34, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publican Party[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. Recent discussions and consequent deletions for Independent Green Voice and Scottish Family Party which are active parties that are running candidates show there are recent precedents for the wider Wikipedia community agreeing that not all political parties are notable, and notability does not attach itself to political parties as a right. This article has sources, but no evidence of WP:GNG and WP:ORG and general achievement. This former political party has no evidence of achievement or notability prior to, or following, elections in its 2 years of existence 14 years ago. Angryskies (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as the article itself says, the party was only a minor party, and only existed for a couple of years. I do not recall this political party ever getting a single mention on the BBC news. Rollo August (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting mentioned on the BBC News isn't a great test of notability. Even then, the BBC wrote a whole article on them in 2005. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coud not find any sig cov. JBchrch (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the party did not gather enough popularity or coverage to establish notability, plus there is so little content that no sections have been created. --K. Peake 11:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG as it is the primary subject of articles from BBC News, The Herald and industry publication The Morning Advertiser. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thank the nominator for using my "template" for AfD nominations, my influence is finally rubbing off! I agree that this party has not proven notability. I do accept that some coverage was made of them but ultimately their achievements are minimal to non-existent, and outside proving they exist, the coverage does not prove notable achievements. Standing for election is what I'd expect from a political party and that shouldn't be enough to host a Wikipedia article. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would agree with the above arguments that the party fails to meet notability requirements. They attracted some passing interest at the time, but nothing that would mean lasting notability and their electoral performance would certainly not be enough to justify an article. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 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. Missvain (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Polyphonics[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, tagged for notability since 2010. Out of the cited sources, only the two Irish Examiner articles are reliable, but both of these only make a passing mention of the group. I can't find any significant coverage anywhere else, either. I think neither the claim of being Ireland's oldest barbershop chorus nor the various championships they've won make up for the lack of coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm the editor who tagged this article in 2010. There were significant COI, PROMO and NN concerns at the time. While I'd addressed the worst of the some of the former, the latter concerns remain. WP:NBAND is not met. Nor is WP:SIGCOV. I cannot but agree with the nomination. Guliolopez (talk) 16:08, 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 keep. Consensus was that the subject meets WP:GNG after improvements to the article.

A wp:requested move can be used to determine where to move the article to. Alternatively, a wp:bold move could be done. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nurul Amin (athlete)[edit]

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

Non-notable sportsperson, sources cited barely mention him, no sigcov; fails WP:GNG / WP:ATHLETE. (Note: careful if searching, plenty of people by the same name!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing anything in searches in terms of getting anyway near to GNG. If there's no other sport he's been involved with other than cricket then he passes no other guideline either. Potential redirect to Assam Cricket Association but he's not listed in the article and there's no information on secretaries on the page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep Per the work from Wjemather below, appears to be just enough for a GNG path. Perhaps a move to Nurul Amin (administrator) or similar would be more appropriate though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd probably suggest Nurul Amin (sports administrator) for clarity. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Football Federation#Corporate structure as that is only claim to fame, but not enough coverage to justify a separate article. GiantSnowman 21:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Suggest creating an article when there is something to write about him. Tintin 01:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've added a couple of substantial sources to the article. There is enough coverage online to suggest there is much more offline (and perhaps in local language sources), given his apparent contribution to, and impact on, various sports in Assam, and even India in general. There were centenary celebrations in 2019 marking his birth ([3]) and the stadium in Nagaon is named after him. If kept, the article should unquestionably be moved to a more appropriate disambiguation, since it does not appear that he was an athlete. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's my bad (the dab). It was on 'Late Nurul Amin', which I didn't think was an appropriate article title, so I moved it to what I thought was, based on the article contents at the time (said "great sportsman"). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you find a date for death for him, there may be some online newspaper reports. Tintin 12:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Per wjemather's work, just barely passes WP:GNG for me and he is the former All India Football Federation president. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move There is no evidence that this person was a sportsman. As has been suggested above can be moved to Nurul Amin (sports administrator) Tintin 01:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tintin1107: it seems you struck out your earlier !vote but haven't cast a new one. 'Move' is only really an option if this article is to be kept, and if you're wanting to argue for keeping, you may wish to make that explicit. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak keep. Thanks for the alert. Since the article has been expanded, no longer delete. Tintin 06:41, 23 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. Closing this as 'keep' as there are no arguments for deletion after the nominator withdrew their nomination. How the content of the article might be organised, whether by way of a merge or into a list, can be discussed elsewhere. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016 North American storm complex[edit]

May 2016 North American storm complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:LASTING. I realize it set a record, but are weather records really all that significant? A cursory search didn't reveal discussion of meteorologists, climatologists, or disaster management specialists continuing to show interest in this event. Daask (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Loosening up on WP:LASTING for a minute, I'm thinking about WP:IAR and reconsidering this on the basis of whether keeping this content is a net positive or net loss for Wikipedia as a whole. I'm inclined to think that it is a net benefit after all. I also don't trust my ability to find relevant sources on this subject area. I apologize for my rash proposal. Daask (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daask: I don't know off the top of my head where this should go, but it should not be deleted from Wikipedia. It should be merged upward into another article. NoahTalk 13:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hurricane Noah: Are you content to keep the article as-is or should we merge it? If you are content to keep it, we could close this discussion with a Speedy keep. Daask (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daask: We are currently looking at all of the Wikipedia articles that involve the weather, in the hopes of combining them into one wikiproject and improving the content/driving standards up across the wiki. One of the ideas that has been proposed is to create a list of significant floods by country (State if needs for the US/Others). As a result of the disaster declarations, I see no reason why this so called storm complex wouldnt go into lists for Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas.Jason Rees (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:42, 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 keep. Consensus was that the subject meets WP:NCRIC, and found and possible existing sources have sufficient coverage of the subject.

It would be ideal to integrate sources found below into the article. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jahid Ahmed[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep 7 FC, 8 LA and 2 T20 matches, about half of which for a county side. There is coverage on him here and here and a more detailed search may bring more. I'll wait to see if any of those with access to Wisden articles from when he was playing can show anymore coverage. Played about half his games for Essex and half for the Unicorns so no real suitable WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Played a sufficient amount of matches for a first-class county to sataisfy CRIN and coverage above + likely coverage in Wisden will suffice for the rest. StickyWicket (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First class cricketer, that should be good enough. Tintin 01:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Played multiple matches across all three formats. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:43, 24 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 Greyhawk#Significant player characters of the home campaign. Content can be merged at editors' discretion. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of Eight[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only real world information is primary interviews with the creator. There do not appear to be any third party sources giving the topic significant real world coverage. TTN (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Greyhawk#Significant player characters of the home campaign - The interviews are already being used to source the entry for the Circle of Eight on the main article, as far as I can tell, so I'm not seeing much in the way of sourced content that still needs to be moved. But, the history will remain intact so if anyone sees anything else they want to move over, they're welcome to. Rorshacma (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Not sure what there is to merge, as the reception is sourced to a book in German without a page number, so hard to verify. No objection to merging if anyone wants to go through the trouble. Nothing to warrant keeping this as a stand-alone article, very fancrufty. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: If you'd like to verify, please follow the Google Books link already given. The sentence(s) are at the bottom of the section named "Status und Obere". If someone had access to the English original, that would of course be even better. Daranios (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Daranios, The link doesn't work for me, all I get is "Keine Leseprobe verfügbar" error which google translates to "No extract available". But I am happy to accept it at good faith that you can verify it and that the relevant content there amounts to a single sentence (which means it fails SIGCOV, so my rationale still stands). Again, no objection to merging that one-useful-sentence worth of content, now that it is AGF verified. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:35, 22 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. Consensus was that the subject is notable and AfD should not be used for cleanup (though the article did get cleaned up, which may have resolved the deletion argument of WP:NOTPROMOTION). (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ulysses String Quartet[edit]

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

Written in a promotional tone. Zai (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 17:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is not listed as a potential reason for deletion under WP's policy.Deckoffa (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep — the nom is without merit. Firstly, I don't see anything especially promotional, let alone solely so; in any case, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. AfD is mainly for judging notability: having won a fairly major contest and placed well in others certainly suggests notability, and the references are IMO enough (albeit that they could do with more secondary RS) to support that. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Strad writing about this quartet gives it enough notability. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the refs in the article suffice to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:39, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Plakalo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he played his last Bosnian league game in 2016, and according to WP:FPL the league only became professional from the next season. Minor league career after that, except for 1 game in the Greek Football League which ceased to be professional. Geschichte (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes NFOOTY. The Greek Football League stopped becoming fully-professional in 2019, when it was demoted to the 3rd tier of Greek football. He played in 18/19, the last season it was the 2nd tier. Nehme1499 18:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nehme, meets NFOOTBALL. There's also coverage out there, see e.g. this - article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 19:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:NFOOTY. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes NFOOTYAloolkaparatha (talk) 09:31, 22 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) 22:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Odunsi[edit]

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

Had been deproded by the author, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, she just won a school competition and WK is not News CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:56, 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 merge to Golden State Collegiate Baseball League. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific West Baseball League[edit]

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

Shares a name with a Canadian baseball league, which made searching for sources difficult, but I couldn't find much newspaper reporting on the league beyond this article (which is on a player in the league), this article (which is from the year after the league folded?) and a small amount of agate. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:20, 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. Per User:Mamushir Missvain (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Testing Board[edit]

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

Notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is this a notable organization? The sources doesn't indicate that. Couldn't find anything that establishes notability, just databases and trivial mentions. Tagged for COI since 2020, which is understable since the article was created by a SPA back in 2013. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its a national member board under International Software Testing Qualifications Board [4]. There are many other member boards and none of them seem notable. Hence creating individual pages for these member boards doesn't seem rational. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are many other national member boards of ISTQB are represented on Wikipedia (Austrian..., German..., Czech and Slovak etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamarton (talk • contribs) 2021-04-21T07:12:55 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ICICB Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. 16 employees. scope_creepTalk 13:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Article is about a topic that doesn't meet notability guidelines. Zai (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 16:44, 22 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 15:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telling Right From Wrong[edit]

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

Significance/notability of book not established SecretName101 (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are cites in the article plus [5], more of these sources, [6], [7], plus many other newspaper articles, other books that cite and discuss the book, plus it made its way on best-seller lists, and so on. Plenty of sources to find on Archive.org as well. Some of these works label the book as an example of literature discussing fake news in the mainstream media, which I think is pretty significant. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: none of which is in the article. Please add that (sourced) to the article. Even then. It is not clear the book itself is notable. Many unnotable books have been written on notable subject matter. SecretName101 (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grrrrrrr, it is not up to editors who list sources at afd to add them to an article, indeed WP:BEFORE (at point D.) suggests that before nominating, a search for sources should be made, a simple gsearch ie. ""Telling Right From Wrong" by timothy cooney book reviews" brings up multiple useable (for wikinotability) reviews (including some of those listed above) that shows this book is wikinotable. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. WP:BKCRIT alone is enough to preserve this article because two New York Times reviews have been published. More probably exist. The editor above me has also provided solid proof of WP:GNG. Per WP:NEXIST, the sources do not actually need to be in the article to save it from deletion. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Honestly, the two New York Times items — one a story about its path to publication, the other a substantial review — would be enough. And there's plenty more beyond that. XOR'easter (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've expanded this some more. Apparently the shady antics didn't stop once it got picked up by a publisher, as the NYT review by Sidney Hook was apparently subject to criticism as well, which received its own coverage. I've included this all in the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem! Honestly, I'm surprised that this isn't more known nowadays as far as the literature world goes. It's kind of a sordid little tale, honestly. It'd make for an interesting film as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh wow, the more I find, the sadder this actually becomes. The guy was the ex-husband of Joan Ganz Cooney and apparently helped bolster her confidence when it came to Sesame Street. However at the same time her success chafed since he felt unimportant. I wonder if that played into his reasons for the forgery. In any case, he became pretty self-destructive in his later years as the whole issue surrounding the forgery ultimately kept him from achieving the recognition and success he craved in philosophy. The forgery was wrong, but you can't help but feel for the guy a little. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:13, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentol Pecah[edit]

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

This is an advert for a web broadcast. Before showing nothing RS but there is some coverage on social media. The article says the webcast was "up and coming" in 2013 - the page hasn't been updated since. Created by a SPA, tagged advert since 2013. The refs in the article are dead. Desertarun (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:00, 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 redirect to Worcestershire Cricket Board. Missvain (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Jamshed[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 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. Missvain (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Rana[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Played 3 FC and 5 LA matches, but I'm only seeing a couple of match reports and nothing significant. No real suitable redirect as he played for 2 differing teams. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 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. Missvain (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tauseef Ali[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Played 7 games, but I'm struggling to find any significant coverage. Some sources on him playing for Rawalpindi may be found in foreign language sources or offline though. No real redirect as he played for two different teams and lists don't exist for either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 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. ✗plicit 13:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apna Nawada[edit]

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

Almost all the current sources are a copy of the same press release and there is no evidence of satisfying WP:NWEB. GSS 💬 12:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 12:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 12:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 12:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG. Do note, the creator of this article, User:Sumanrsb2 has declared on their userpage that they founded this web portal, so they have a strong COI. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, local website that isn't notable.--Mvqr (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real cites; fails notability. Just the same press release used again and again for cites. --FeldBum (talk) 15:46, 22 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. There seems to be consensus that there are sources now present in the article that satisfy the GNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bald and Bankrupt[edit]

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

Article is about a popular YouTuber, but there's very little out there in terms of notable/reliable coverage. Is what is included enough to justify the article? I lean no at this time. Nemov (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can find a few passing mentions about the show in RS, but nothing that grants Rich direct coverage. NickCT (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic has received coverage in reliable sources. There are already quite a few citations in the article pointing to them. Eopsid (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Eopsid. At least one of these news sources focuses on Rich and his channel. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 03:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are several sources already in the article directly dealing with him or his channels as the subject. A quick Google reveals plenty more articles about him. Sourcing seems OK to me. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Also concur that sources seem sufficient Vember94 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks like the article is part of the WikiProject YouTube project. Subject currently has 2.84M subscribers, I think the article improves Wikipedia's YouTube coverage and is adequately sourced. DavidDelaune (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it seems that some UK publications have covered his viral videos, this individual still fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 05:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a variety of sources not just UK publications. But American and Russian language ones as well. Eopsid (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having "a lot of subscribers" is not a valid justification for keeping an article on Wikipedia. It is reasonable to argue that the YouTuber has received enough attention from notable sources, but I still lean it's not enough for the article to exist. --Nemov (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per WP:ARBITRARY, having a lot of subscribers does not make an individual notable. That said, further discussion is needed on whether he's good enough to pass WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 13:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has sources, but The Daily Express and The Daily Dot articles are the only ones that are specifically about the channel. Are those sources reliable and significant enough to justify the article's existence? The Vice (magazine) source mentions the channel, but only in passing. There are a few local sources in the countries he visited, but does that rise to the level of significant coverage? --Nemov (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I spent about 10 minutes digging around and this Youtuber is actually featured in alot of eastern european news sites. Unfortunately it looks like because he mostly tours India and eastern European nations much of the coverage is limited to those areas.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
He doesn't have as much coverage in the western news outlets. I was quite surprised to find that that Der Standard published a piece about him. DavidDelaune (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Research

  1. ^ "Jutjuber pronašao najjeftiniji hotel u Evropi: "Toliko je jeftin da nema ni ime, a da im vidite tek sobe!"". Blic.rs (in Croatian). 2021-03-22. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  2. ^ Nikolić, Ivana (2021-02-18). "Da nije bilo srpskih doktora umro bih: Čuveni britanski Jutjuber opisao svoju borbu sa Kovidom". Telegraf.rs (in Croatian). Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  3. ^ "VIDEO - Maailmakuulus reisivlogija külastas retrotrammiga Tondit: lõpuks olen jõudnud Nõukogude Eestisse!". Kroonika (in Estonian). 2021-02-01. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  4. ^ "Verschwörungstheoretiker attackieren Youtuber nach Video über schwere Corona-Erkrankung". DER STANDARD (in German). 2020-07-13. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  5. ^ "Британец снимает свое путешествие по всему СНГ. Такой России вы еще не видели". Daily Afisha (in Russian). 2020-07-13. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  6. ^ ""Приключения в Гопниквилле". Популярный британский блогер снял видео о Харькове". Харьков (in Russian). 2021-03-15. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  7. ^ ""Prague is the most liveable city"–YouTuber Bald and Bankrupt on his new home and Soviet fascination". Radio Prague International. 2020-09-11. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  8. ^ Magazin, Index (2021-03-22). "VIDEO Pogledajte kako izgleda unutrašnjost hotela u kojem noćenje košta 26 kuna". Index.hr (in Croatian). Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  9. ^ "Bald and Bankrupt". Famous Bald People. 2020-02-18. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
  10. ^ "British Vlogger Who Visited Minsk Military Parade, Now Infected With COVID-19". BelarusFeed. 2020-07-10. Archived from the original on 2020-12-17. Retrieved 2021-04-12.
Comment - Is famousbaldpeople.com a reliable source? Eopsid (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure if English is your native language but that was exactly my point. There aren't many reliable sources and most of the news coverage is eastern European. This is a talk page, those are not article citations/references. DavidDelaune (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I changed the title on the Reflist-talk box to reduce the confusion. DavidDelaune (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could use source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DavidDelaune the DerStandard reference seems impressive and its true that there are some other RS in eastern-European languages pulling Bald and Bankrupt beyond SIGCOV. So my vote would be for the keep. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it seems there have been numerous WP:GNG-level sources (from many different countries!) added since the original AfD nomination. Most arguments for Delete address citations/notability, so I reckon those have been greatly assuaged.
Also (and I'm not sure what specific policy to cite here) but there's evidently an ongoing directed campaign to attack this page — edit wars, sock puppets, increasing anonymous contributions, a whole bunch of brigading tomfuckery. Other editors have ascribed this to users from Reddit, particularly the /r/BaldAndBaldrDossier subreddit, but I haven't dug very deep. If I can find a specific post I'll link to it. Though it's perhaps not an argument for Keep per se, it does make the original AfD nomination smell rather dubious. Knowing that, Delete at this time really rubs me the wrong way.
Nemov has clarified that they put the article up for deletion and have been watching it for some time, so it's unrelated to posts coming from /r/BaldAndBaldrDossier. They also helpfully linked two threads where calls for action are being made: [10][11]. So the timing of the nomination is simply coincidental. As far as I can tell, no sources cited from that subreddit have made it into the article (which is unfortunate, from a certain perspective). I'm still rankled by the targeted harassment and brigading, but oddly enough a group of 3.4k members dedicated to "exposing" the host of the show is actually a persuasive argument for notoriety and retaining the article — though obviously not possessing citation-quality. If only they were so dedicated to verifying their information! Sigh. Still Keep, all things considered. –OrinZ (talk) 13:33, 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 redirect to Mac MacLeod. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND as there is no independent reliable sources that could confirm that the subject is notable or eligible. Earlier, the article was also tagged as unreferenced and tagging is an alternative to deletion. But when the article is not improved even after tagging, then it should be deleted or performed an alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) — A.A Prinon  Conversation 08:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amber (band)[edit]

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

The article does not cite any sources, fully unsourced and thus also difficult to understand whether it meets WP:GNG/notability guidelines or not. A.A Prinon (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. A.A Prinon (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a reference as we find here, there may be more. At least the band's existence is confirmed in association with Mac MacLeod. I can not confirm if the band is eligible as per WP:BAND since we don't see such coverage at least till now. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Mac MacLeod as there is some coverage such as this staff written AllMusic bio here but they did not manage to release any music while they were active only much later so am not seeing independent notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:50, 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 merge to Shamim Osman. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khela Hobe[edit]

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

Non-notable. Yes, there are a couple of decent sources, but still — are we to have an article on every 'political slogan' that gets mentioned in newspapers? (And lest we forget, having sources only gives rise to the presumption of notability; it does not guarantee it.) Also comes pretty close to dicdef. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for what it is worth this seems worse than a dictionary defintion. Having read the article, I have no idea at all what the slogan means or signifies. A dictionary defintion would have at least allowed me to know that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Shamim Osman - I didn't find enough in-depth independent coverage to suggest that this slogan merits its own article. One source found is this, which says "one [slogan] that has particularly captured the imagination across the political spectrum is the slogan ‘khela hobe’ (Game on) .... The slogan was first used by Bangladesh's Awami League MP Shamim Osman a few years ago". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per user:BennyOnTheLoose. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:27, 23 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 12:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoodAI[edit]

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 14:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Marek Rosa (though that article itself needs a thorough rewrite...) Jdcooper (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you saying that this fails notability guidelines? I see two of the references meet the notability criteria of being second-party independant reliable sources that cover the company in detail. (Specifically references 2 and 11.) Am I missing something there? Is that number insufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronin Librarian (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically, I may be wrong, but I believe that it passes notability guidelines. I used the following four articles to establish notability, all of which are written by independant second-hand reporting sources that go into varying degrees of depth about GoodAI specifically:
About GoodAI https://www.economist.com/1843/2017/07/05/teaching-robots-right-from-wrong
General AI Challenge https://qz.com/911515/theres-5-million-in-prize-money-to-build-facebooks-vision-for-artificial-general-intelligence/
https://www.redherring.com/investor-interview/goodai-founder-marek-rosa-future-ai-important-mustnt-panic/
GoodAI Grants https://www.czechcrunch.cz/2020/08/miliony-na-podporu-vyvoje-obecne-umele-inteligence-goodai-marka-rosy-vypisuje-stedry-grant-pro-vyzkumniky/
unsigned comment added by Ronin Librarian (talk • contribs) 2:55, 15 April 2021
Another WP:SPA writing a paid article. The first references above, is a press-release, the rest fail WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. They are not independent. scope_creepTalk 10:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I agree regarding those sources except I don't see how the Quartz article isn't independent from GoodAI. Are its content or its author connected to GoodAI? — MarkH21talk 05:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first is an annoucement of a competition, and a partnership as it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It comes from a press-release and is not independent. The second one is an interview with the Marek Rosa, so it dependent source. It fails WP:ORGIND. It is not organisationaly independent from the company. It is an interview with the founder. So it fails WP:SIRS. The core problem here, one a trade journal starts talking to the company directly, then it is not independent. It a not a true source. Most of the trade operate like that, as they supposed journalist, but they are not really journalists as would get from e.g. the old Baltimore Sun, or the LA times, or AP News, or the Guardian or the Telegraph. They don't understand the tech, as it very complex, so they operate by inteviews and what the company puts out, so they're not creating journalistic stories, in the same sense of the Baltimore Sun. It is really jaundiced articles they put out, that are really only valid until next issue of the mag or stories. scope_creepTalk 07:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the analysis of references above - those references fail NCORP. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 00:25, 23 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. Missvain (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OrgSync[edit]

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

I can find no in depth, independent coverage of this former software. GHits are a red herring as colleges had an OrgSync site to run their colleges, and those come up. Its successor, Campus Labs does not have an article and I can find no information on them that suggests significant notability to build an article there to merge to. StarM 16:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Also, the article is written as if it is about a piece of software, but it has a company infobox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton.bersh (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:38, 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. Missvain (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Puppet Designer[edit]

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

A wonderful project that had it's debut as a prior iteration at a festival and as of this writing, had not made its world premiere in final form. A BEFORE shows no indication of a subsequent premiere, nor any other indication of independent, reliable source coverage. Ahead of anyone flagging it, it's very close to a copyvio of here but paraphrased enough to avoid a G12 and there was already a declined A7 so bringing it here for discussion. StarM 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:36, 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. Missvain (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. O'Hara[edit]

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

Some claims of notability are made, but I don't see this musician clearly satisfying any of the criteria of WP:NMUSICIAN. Most importantly, there seems to be a lack of coverage outside of specialised trumpet-related outlets. Lennart97 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:35, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonpreet Jawanda[edit]

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

The article was soft-deleted last year after a delete vote by Devokewater and then restored after the deletion was challenged by anon. The subject appears to have played some minor supporting roles in major productions or major roles in minor productions. Almost all the current sources are name checks and I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG and looks like WP:TOOSOON. GSS 💬 17:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 17:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 17:46, 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) 00:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2402:8100:394E:4460:4534:2CA5:9FC9:4261 (talk) 17:22, 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. Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P & P Cable Holdings[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable source coverage on this and do not know why it is notable. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP Rusf10 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:02, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SoCal Premier League[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur league, fails WP:GNG, the only sources in the article are primary/not independent and the only two hits I came up with were describing a USASA team playing in the Open Cup and something about rugby, which was unrelated to the league. SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:00, 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. ✗plicit 11:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Himesh Mankad[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:NJOURNALIST. Gazal world (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 10:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable journalist. None of the coverage suggests that he has created any sig work that is itself a subject of multiple reliable independent coverages. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable individual. In addition, it seems to be a promotional material. --Egeymi (talk) 14:03, 22 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 11:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Blend Hawke's Bay[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage from independent sources and there is nothing cited in the article. My search only came back with a job advert asking for presenters for a new radio station. I was going to draftify the article but, if there aren't any decent sources out there, it would be better to actually delete it. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 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 speedy keep. No deletion rational, offered. Further discussion at the article's talk page about how to properly name and preserve attribution history appear called for. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi High episodes[edit]

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

I have split this article into two separate ones: List of Degrassi Junior High episodes and List of Degrassi High episodes, as the two are considered individual series, and there is no point or reason as to why the two are grouped together. The existence of this article is now redundant. ToQ100gou (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: on February 2021, you moved the page List of Degrassi episodes to List of Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi High episodes (see this diff). Now, you've split off episodes from the two disparate series and deleting this long-standing article, resulting in the loss of nearly 16 years of editing history. Why didn't you just split off List of Degrassi High episodes from the original article instead? I propose to delete the current List of Degrassi Junior High episodes article, restore the content in this article, then move it to List of Degrassi Junior High episodes so that full editing history is retained. Mindmatrix 11:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mindmatrix: I moved List of Degrassi episodes because not only did the title insinuate that it was a list of all of the episodes in the entire franchise, but because there is an entire part of Degrassi: The Next Generation that is officially titled just Degrassi, and this would have likely caused confusion. Then recently, I realized that the two series being grouped together was unnecessary and needed a split.
I was also then unable to move List of Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi High episodes post-split (it gave me a 'either page already exists or name isn't valid' error, despite page being empty), so I had to create an entirely new article for DJH instead, therefore the current mix-up. That being said, I agree with your proposal. ToQ100gou (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose full deletion, support Mindmatrix's alternative. We also have to take into account the page's editing history — if we consider the content notable enough to have articles at all, then we have to balance how we're presenting the content now against the ability to track the history of how it was presented in the past (for example, we sometimes need to review articles' edit histories at some point to determine who originally added certain content.) Splitting the page wasn't an unreasonable idea, so I'm not rapping ToQ100gou on the nose for that — but we do still need to hold on to the old page's edit history, so there are better ways to handle the changeover than just deleting the original article outright. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 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 delete. Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etoosindia[edit]

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

An online cram school. Fails WP:ORG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:28, 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. Sandstein 07:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah-Jane Varley[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. --hroest 14:15, 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. ✗plicit 11:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sakthi Sugars[edit]

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

No citations in the article and very little appeared on searched. Fails WP:NCORP Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:26, 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. Sandstein 07:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Cafe Table[edit]

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

Complete Promo. Most of the sources here are their own website or goodreads. Fails WP:ORG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: lacks coverage WP:SIGCOV. Couldn’t find reliable secondary sources defcon5 (talk) 14:01, 23 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 11:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Downing Developments[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only coverage I could find was routine fundraising announcements, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article on a company whose main business is student accommodation developments. Searches find announcement-based coverage of the development and sale of various such projects, but these fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH and I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 14:28, 24 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space Invaders Invincible Collection[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, wholly unsourced, no evidence of notability whatsoever. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources:
IceWelder [✉] 09:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per source list above. Nominator, please be mindful of WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn 'Space Invaders Forever', I note, is NOT 'Space Invaders Invincible Collection' in search! If the article were now improved, it would help itself better... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:07, 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. ✗plicit 11:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GiftRapped[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Has appeared on a notable show but that's not wholly sufficient to cross notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. BEFORE shows nothing notable. JBchrch (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough news coverage to meet notability. Peter303x (talk) 21:05, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emannuel Bawa[edit]

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

Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC, having only played at an U19 level. Article was prod'd, but the prod was removed without any reason. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were all created by the same editor, who removed the prod from all of them, and they have only played at U19 level:

Navod Paranavithana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cooper Connolly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ollie White (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Avinash Mahabirsingh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrittunjoy Chowdhury, which was in the same batch. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all All fail NCRIC and while there is some coverage for some of them, none of it is anyway near enough to pass GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I had a bit of leeway with this new user, allow them time to find their feet and learn the project notability guidelines and what not. But after having it explained to them that U19 cricketers are not notable, the user ignores that and goes ahead and removes the PRODs, plus there's the duplication of existing articles so they're not competent. Can we get rid of this user too?! StickyWicket (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate: hopefuly gone soon, as they are a sock of a banned user. Spike has linked to the SPI report, above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: they're still creating Under-19 cricketers, despite being told not to. No hope for some! StickyWicket (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've logged this at WP:ANI to hopefully speed things up. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - as has been said, they do no meet WP:NCRIC. Onel5969 TT me 19:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - they could all have been speedied, as being created by a sock of Vallabharebel. Perhaps an admin will do a speedy close. Onel5969 TT me 19:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - as has been said, they do no meet WP:NCRICAloolkaparatha (talk) 09:42, 22 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. Missvain (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karmic Debts[edit]

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

Probably fails WP:NBOOK. It is possible that the author herself (Inga Raitar) is notable for enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wasn't able to find sourcing that could establish that this book is notable. A search for the original title didn't really bring up anything that looked like a RS either. It's possible that some of this may not show up in a Google search, so if anyone can find proper sourcing I'm open to being swayed, but until then it's a delete on my end. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NBOOK. I could not find any published reviews of book, nor has it won a major literary award or has made significant contribution to notable motion picture or art form. --Ashleyyoursmile! 05:52, 28 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 11:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mrittunjoy Chowdhury[edit]

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

PROD removed, this article has been created multiple times and there hasn't been any indication that the player is anywhere near to passing WP:GNG. All I can see is he has played Under-19s crickets and has yet to play for the top level national team. Also suggest SALT'ing. Govvy (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above plus should be WP:G5ed anyway. Spike 'em (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and all other comments, fails NCRIC and GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to Draft. Mrittunjoy Chowdhury is still a Under-19 player. He hasn't yet played any domestic or international match at highest level. So, fails WP:NCRICKET. I am also giving the idea of draftifying it besides deleting because once the player plays any domestic match , the article can be moved back to article space. — A.A Prinon  Conversation 15:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a more expansive Draft:Mrittunjoy Chowdhury. Spike 'em (talk) 17:44, 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. Participants determined that the available references do not satisfy guidelines and that the subject is not notable. ✗plicit 11:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slidebean[edit]



AfDs for this article:


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

Fail of WP:ORGCRITE. References demonstrate trivial coverage or unreliable sources. nearlyevil665 06:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 06:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An assessment table was created to discuss the sources presented in the 2018 article discussion (1st Nomination). I am including it here.

This company has gained new coverage in the past months, which, to my perception, fulfills the GNG requirements for the publication. I have added those publications to the table.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
TechCrunch 1 ~ Yes ~ Nothing about the company, and a pretty minimal overview of the software ~ Partial
TheNextWeb ~ While a guest writer, the writer has 100+ publications. Yes Yes ~ Partial
La Nación Yes La Nación is a one of the major news publications in the country. Yes Yes Article dedicated to the company. ✔ Yes
Bloomberg Yes Yes No Just an index entry for the company ✘ No
Ethos3 Yes Presumed ? Publication is another company in the presentation field, so conflict of interest is a possibility Yes For the software, not the company ? Unknown
Hongkiat Yes Presumed ~ Presumed Yes For the software, not the company ~ Partial
El Financiero Yes Presumed Yes Presumed ~ Brief coverage of software; very little about company ~ Partial
Frenchweb Yes Presumed Yes Presumed ~ ~ Partial
500.co No Ad copy written by the company itself No ✘ No
Crunchbase ? Source of data and editing process are not clear ? Yes Good detail on finances and personnel ? Unknown
Success in Business podcast Yes Presumed Yes Presumed Yes The business is the central topic of a 15-minute interview ✔ Yes
TechCrunch 2 ~ Yes ~ Pretty minimal ~ Partial
Slidebean 1 No Company's own website No ✘ No
TechCrunch 3 Yes Yes Yes More in-depth coverage of both software and company ✔ Yes
Slidebean 2 No Company's own website No ✘ No
The Washington Post Yes Yes Yes Brief mention of the founder and software. Compliant passing reference. ✔ Yes
Business Insider Yes Yes Yes Piece fully dedicated to the company. Protected under paywall, so unlikely a paid ad. ✔ Yes
Introduction to Computers for Healthcare Professionals Yes ~ ~ ~ Partial
Small Business Management Yes ~ ~ ~ Partial
El Periódico Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.



Finally, this company's Youtube subscriber count exceeds the audience of This Week in Startups and many other Youtubers listed on Wikipedia.

Jpczcaya (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (I was working towards starting this AfD myself, after removing most of the peacock language in this version), many of the sources here are thin (thenextweb and techcrunch are both not listed favourably on WP:RSP). Many of the cited sources are (were, as I removed them) promotional pieces or blogs (hongkiat). In the end their claim to notability boils down to "they have also helped create decks for multi-million dollar funding rounds". --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply At least 5 of the sources in the assessment table from the first AfD have been agreed as meeting the GNG criteria. New coverage includes Washington Post and Business Insider. How many GNG sources are needed? -- Jpczcaya T 22:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like a case of undisclosed paid-for spam. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS 💬 07:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • GSS, not paid-for spam, I strongly suspect that the creator has a more direct conflict of interest. Dirk Beetstra T C 09:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Beetstra: Oh yes! Google was much helpful to reveal. ;) GSS 💬 10:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did a quick Google search myself. I have added a COI tag to the article. nearlyevil665 10:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Nearlyevil665 and GSS:, the article states "'Caya' Jose Cayasso" as CEO, no need for an internet search. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply COI tag has been added and disclosed as per guidelines. Apologies for missing this. Tried to do the proper research after the experience with the first AfD.

              After User:Beetstra's edits, the current version of the article is clean, and includes language backed by the citations included, which seem to comply with GNG requirements on the assessment table (please edit this accordingly if you feel a source has been misrepresented). I've also updated the table with additional sources, including books and news publications with unquestionable notoriety (Washington Post, Business Insider, 'El Periódico' from Spain).

              I hate using an argument/drawing comparisons to other Wikipedia content, but I've identified comparable pages (for companies, products or Youtube channels) with less notoriety than Slidebean that have survived deletion consideration and even COIs. For example, This Week in Startups which only has 4 references of equal or similar weight to the ones provided here, TeslaBjorn a much smaller Youtube channel with citations coming from mainly primary sources; and PowToon a comparable product/company, with fewer sources, and also possible COI. Again, neither of these were subject to such scrutiny.

              The only reason I jumped back into this discussion was after I saw User:Oromo1235's attempt to republish this page back in March. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Slidebean). While I made mistakes in the process of bringing this discussion back to the table, I think there has been significant coverage on this company/Youtube channel that has not been taken into consideration.

              In advance, thanks for the time and dedication you've all put in considering this. -- Jpczcaya T 22:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Jpczcaya, I would like you to respond to the conflict of interest remarks (and read m:Terms of use). Note that your argument regarding TeslaBjorn is a good example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeslaBjorn). Dirk Beetstra T C 06:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Imagine if this was all a ploy to force the takedown of a rival's article. 4-D chess move. nearlyevil665 09:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Reply Beetstra I confirmed my COI, it's included a tag at the top of this discussion.
                    Not intending to get those articles taken down, by any means (I wish I were that smart, nearlyevil). The point is they have withstood someones AfD/GNG consideration. Piotrus is oversimplifying this debate by discouraging the sources presented as press releases. Have you actually seen the sources in the assessment table?
                    A Search (with social media excluded) yields 100,000+ results. I am genuinely asking: isn't that enough notoriety? -- Jpczcaya T 14:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The quantity of search results is irrelevant. I followed your link and skimmed through the first three pages and it's nothing but primary sources. I don't see any independent, significant coverage by secondary sources. And it's those type of sources that actually count towards notability. nearlyevil665 15:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very impressed a user with less than 90 edits is using assessment tables. Shows what a slowpoke I am. Meanwhile, no significant coverage, fails WP:PRODUCT Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Don't get discouraged. The table was copied from the first AfD, written by an experienced user. nearlyevil665 08:17, 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. ✗plicit 12:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse of the Prime Minister of Singapore[edit]

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

There is no such official position, and spouses of the prime minister do not undertake any official dealings on behalf of the government. They accompany their husbands on diplomatic trips, but are not accorded any special rights or privileges separate from their husband. The entire article is unsourced, and complicated further by Ho Ching's activities undertaken as CEO of Temasek Holdings, which does not reflect on her position as a spouse of the Prime Minister. Seloloving (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete entirely unsourced; "not an elected position, carries no official duties, and brings no salary." and is not a thing! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely agree with the above. Athel cb (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have lists of this sort for most countries and it would be a bizarrely capricious insult to this country to delete this one. The people in question received appropriate acknowledgement on diplomatic and state occasions (see right) and Kwa Geok Choo had a state funeral. The worst case would be merger to the List of prime ministers of Singapore per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would just like to add that there's nothing to preserve. The entire page on the roles of a spouse is unsourced despite my best efforts to hunt for sources today. I am from Singapore and self-nominated this article for deletion as spouses of the prime minister quite literally have no duties to perform for the government. Kwa's state funeral itself generated controversy back then as she was not a civil servant. Seloloving (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, not a formalised institution/title anyway CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Not a formalised position, but could be edited to make that clear. But the material on the page as it stands is pretty thin. Atchom (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am persuaded by the comments above that this is not a thing (as a side note, we should probably have WP:NOTATHING for linking in discussions). I think the spirit of WP:NOTINHERITED/WP:INVALIDBIO can be applied here. I find the argument that it would be an insult to Singapore to delete this list on the grounds that there are many articles in Category:Lists of spouses of national leaders thoroughly unconvincing—that's just another way of saying WP:Similar articles exist, which is one of the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Indeed, if there are other articles in that category to which the same arguments for deletion apply, those articles should also be brought to WP:AfD.
    I think it would be terribly inappropriate to merge this to List of prime ministers of Singapore, as was suggested above. I am reminded of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Grant Bennett and its associated Deletion Review, where S Marshall said I think it's important to treat women as people in their own right and not as accessories to their husbands or their husbands' careers. Merging this content to List of prime ministers of Singapore would indeed be treating the PM spouses as accessories to the PMs and their careers. Moreover, who the PM's spouse is is a biographical detail unrelated to the role as PM. The proper place for that piece of biographical information is the biographical article about the individual PM. And of course, each individual spouse of a Singaporean PM can have a biographical article if they are independently notable, where the same information about who they're married to can be presented from the opposite direction, so to speak. TompaDompa (talk) 00:44, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Reinisch[edit]

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

Survived PROD as not technically unsourced, however neither of those is reliable sources and a BEFORE shows sources like this press release about shows at his gallery. There is nothing in German or English to indicate he's a notable gallerist, not that his gallery meets WP:ORG. StarM 00:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a search brought up only unreliable sources, directory listings and press releases, meaning that this person clearly fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:50, 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. Missvain (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Cunliffe[edit]

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

Non-notable actor per WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 04:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 04:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The subject has not played significant role in multiple notable films or television shows. Plus lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:30, 28 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida)[edit]

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

An earlier Afd was closed as keep all , because most of the items listed were on the NHRP, which proves notability . This one isn't, [12] and I can find. no other information. The web site for the hotel occupying the house [13] gives no indication of historic status

(There's a Pink House in Savannah Georgia, which is on the register--this make searching just a little trickier.) DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's this that is what you are looking for. There's no indication of who wrote that, or what xyr reputation for fact checking is, and there's no evidence that I can find that anyone else has ever fact checked this claim that a plaque turned up making this house historic. If a local historian had checked it out, that would be another matter. But I do not see how we can safely write an article on this when the only people claiming this are writing anonymously on a marketing company's WWW site, or the owners of the house being interviewed for a newspaper. This purported history is nowhere near solid enough. Uncle G (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also called the Walter Brown House, most of what I could find online was just about the opening of the bed & breakfast. This is one of those articles which would be weakly notable if the offline sources discuss it significantly at all and weakly non-notable if they don't, all on WP:GNG grounds - the NHRP seems irrelevant here. SportingFlyer T·C 13:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added content to the article with refs. Based on the refs, I did not get the impression it was a tourist attraction, but rather a historic site and landmark. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:48, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Young Scots for Independence[edit]

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

There is no real indication that this is a notable organisation. Little to no coverage, and what there is mentions the organisation briefly. Vitalis196 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:33, 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. Bearcat makes a very convincing argument, and their interpretation of policy is spot on. While the numbers are 3/2 to delete, based on the strength of the arguments, consensus is clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Livesey (journalist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly sourced as passing WP:JOURNALIST. As always, the notability test for a journalist is not passed by using his own work as metaverification that his work exists -- it's passed by using third party coverage about him and his work as verification that it's been externally deemed as significant by sources other than his own employers. That is, he doesn't become notable by being the author of media coverage about other things, he becomes notable by being the subject of media coverage written by other people. But this is referenced almost entirely to his own bylined work, and the only sources that actually represent independent coverage or analysis about his work are from a podcast and an advocacy organization, which are not solid enough to clinch his notability all by themselves if they're the best sources on offer. And while there are valid notability claims here that would qualify him for an article that was sourced properly, there's nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Strongly oppose deletion. There are now 21 references in which Livesey is profiled or his work reviewed. Thanks for drawing my attention to this and also for your work promoting more First Nations journalists, a worthwhile project. I would like to see more Wikipedia articles about Canadian journalists and Canadian news outlets.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, even after your changes there still aren't 21 notability-supporting sources here. Six of the footnotes are "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of his own past and present employers, which are not notability-making sources. Another six are still his own bylined work metaverifying its own existence. Three are still from the same podcast, two are still from the same advocacy organization, one is from a student media publication, and one is steadfastly refusing to actually load at all in order for me to verify exactly what it is or isn't (but is stated in the citation as coming from a cable community channel, which is the Canadian equivalent of public access television and thus wouldn't be notability-making sourcing regardless of what it is or isn't.)
Only two of the 21 footnotes are actually starting to build any case for notability at all — the National Post and Quill & Quire are steps in the right direction, as they're actual reviews of his work in real GNG-worthy media outlets, but a person still needs more than just two of those to clear the bar. Articles about journalists, as a rule, frequently run into this problem: content self-published by their own employers, such as staff profiles, don't help to establish their notability at all, and it can be very nearly impossible to actually devise a viable search term that finds coverage about the journalist (which helps notability) while filtering out primary source staff profiles and coverage produced by the journalist (which do not help notability) — which is why, in reality, most of the "work" I've done on journalists recently has involved redirecting redlinked names of potentially notable, but not yet properly sourceable, journalists like Melissa Ridgen and Asha Tomlinson and Chris Ensing to their employers. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat To avoid deletion of this article, I have been re-reading various protocols on the AfD process to better understand the process. While previously articles I have created have succeeded in AfD, it is always helpful to learn more. As suggested in the deletion policy section, "Alternatives to deletion" I have added two maintenance templates. I am hoping through the article stub template to invite more participation from the Journalism Project to this discussion. I added the "more citations needed" template, to respond to your major concern.
The policy Notability in a nutshell reads: "A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." In your statement you narrow in the case of journalists, by saying that the notability test for a journalist is only valid when it is, "passed by using third party coverage about him and his work as verification that it's been externally deemed as significant by sources other than his own employers." The problem with adding "other than his employers" is that a journalist who has worked in Canada's mass media industry for over 35 years, has worked and/or published in almost every major newspaper and outlet in Canada along with PBS, NPR in the United States and the Guardian in the UK. There are many journalists in Canada whose notability would suffer from the same dilemma—they have worked for too many major media outlets. I was surprised to see how few Canadian newspaper reporters and correspondents, and Canadian investigative journalists have Wikipedia articles. Of those that do, there are many with weak sources. For many, their obituaries were the main source. If there are notable in death, why not when they were living?Oceanflynn (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that any coverage of him that ever appears in a news outlet he previously worked for is permanently inadmissible forever even if it's published long, long after he doesn't actually work there anymore — that's very different than his own current employer writing about stuff he did for that self-same current employer. But the single most important thing you cannot do is stake his notability as a journalist on the existence of "our staff" profiles in his own employers' websites — you need journalist-written news stories about him and his accomplishments, not "meet our team" staff directories, to make a journalist notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep this is an award-winning journalist, awards convey notability. While only co-winner of the Dupont award, he won the 2008 national magazine award (and apparently again in 2013), a Canadian Journalism Award and a national newspaper award for the Irving story. There is clearly enough here for notability. Also his book was nominated for an award. see [14]. --hroest 14:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An award gets a person over our notability standards only to the extent that said award garners reliable source coverage about the presentation of said award to demonstrate that it's seen as a notable award. If you have to rely on the article subject's own staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer to source an award win, because independent third-party media coverage that treats the award win as a news story is nonexistent, then that award is not a notability-making award — no award is a notability claim until you can source the presentation of the award to journalistic reportage about the award ceremony. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's been quite a lot of work gone into this, but I've been through it carefully and have to accept Bearcat's analysis. It just doesn't add up to a notable person and doesn't pass WP:JOURNALIST. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:16, 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 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. Not a lot of participation, but even searching the links provided shows nothing, so the one keep argument is too weak to override the consensus to delete. It isn't likely that breaking tradition and relisting again would provide a different outcome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hackolade[edit]

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

Mentioned in various sources; most of the refs are refs to other software with which it can be used, Not one substantial 3rd party reliable published source DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2016-07 ✗ G11, 2016-07 ✗ deleted, 2016-07 ✗ deleted
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Velella  Velella Talk   21:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of substantive sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:59, 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 keep. It would have been better if instead of linking to a google search result in a foreign language, specific sources were presented, but there nevertheless seems to be consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saranyu Winaipanit[edit]

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

No reliable sources on the subject, and I couldn't find any to add except mirrors and copies of the Wikipedia article. No significant coverage, fails WP:NMUSIC. Chlod (say hi!) 02:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 04:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 04:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 04:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of coverage by mainstream news source. See Google News search [17] for coverage of him. For WP:NMUSIC: GMM Grammy is one of the big 2 of Thai music industry. His article alone listed 5 full albums. According to this reference [18] (an old TV show covering 10 trivials for each topic) mentioned that his album was the top seller of the year 2006. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated the article with 2 recent awards he received from top-tier national TV awards. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lerdsuwa. An adequate WP:BEFORE assessment was clearly not done here. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lol unresearched AfD really!! One of the most popular singer in 2006s and was a heart of teen girls. However, notability of an individual is determined by being subject of coverage in reliable sources rather than what they had done in their lifetimes and this person definitely pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO on the sources provided by Lerdsuwa. Thanks for your nice work! VocalIndia (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC with multiple albums released on a major label so he should be included in Wikipedia in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 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 delete. In almost a month of listing (and 15 years of the article existing), no one has been able to demonstrate that significant coverage in reliable sources exist, so the arguments that they don't is compelling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Meat Science Association[edit]

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

My beef with this article is that it cites no third-party sources (tagged since 2015) and makes no claim to notability. (Which would make it speediable, but it's been around since 2006.) A search establishes that the organization exists, but reveals no in-depth coverage of the sort we'd need for notability per WP:N. Sandstein 20:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 20:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 20:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep just from a quick googling. It does exist and there are a few sources, mostly local news, that talk about it. e.g. [19] and [20]. But nothing to back up whats in the actual article like the history of the association. But I havent looked too in depth Eopsid (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete these do not constitue WP:SIGCOV. The 1-sentence mention of AMSA in [1] is AMSA fosters community and professional development among individuals who create and apply science to efficiently provide safe and high quality meat defined as red meat (beef, pork and lamb), poultry, fish/seafood and meat from other managed species. [2] just says they hosted a quiz for undergraduates. I do find it curious how an association with its own journal (Meat and Muscle Biology) has no SIGCOV. So I just checked Google News, Scholar, and proper, going through the first three result pages. Seems like there are no sufficiently meaty sources; it's mostly self-published stuff. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 18:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:28, 5 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 22:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • German speakers, especially those from Switzerland, have a reputation, at least here in England, for being rather humourless, so I think we should give the nominator some credit for the first two words. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm leaning keep, although my rationale is poor; this article is just a name drop, but their certification must be of some importance for a statewide initiative. Google Scholar comes up with lots of hits for papers they've done, and this one is hosted by the UN. Sure, regurgitating press-releases and primary sources aren't going to fly, but maybe I'm a little sympathetic toward trade-industry education. And to be entirely honest, I just wanted to chime in so I could agree on the above comment because it's the best nomination possible. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A respectable scientific association. Finding sources is just a matter of looking – see WP:BEFORE and WP:NOEFFORT. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then what exactly are these sources that are supposedly so easy to find? Sandstein 12:32, 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Tower (1998 film)[edit]

Ivory Tower (1998 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability guideline requires more than one source. You mentioned that it's an internet-era film and that you couldn't find anymore sigificant coverage which should be a good enough reason to vote delete. SL93 (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I only made a passing search, and found that in a few seconds. I've dropped a note at WT:FILM for more input. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk 23:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: In addition to what's in the article through Lugnuts or otherwise, I found this from DVD Review (which appears to have editorial control and other RS hallmarks). I checked newspapers.com and didn't find further reviews, although did find enough passing coverage to imply people were paying attention to it for a few years later. I don't know if 'internet era' is right here; a lot of stuff from around the turn of the millennium has surprisingly little online coverage. Vaticidalprophet 09:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFILM CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 04:19, 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. ✗plicit 12:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Vardaro[edit]

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

Not notable as a soldier or as an actor. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well he doesn't pass WP:NACTOR so it's down to coverage of his war record. Also the article is the same as IMDb here so G12 may apply, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Mztourist (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't pass anything in WP:BIO. Can't find any independent, reliable sources besides the two already listed in the article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet GNG. Intothatdarkness 16:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I take the opposite tack to Atlantic306: to me he's obviously non-notable as a soldier and the article authors did themselves no favours using the military person infobox. Simply serving in the ranks during a war and getting wounded is nowhere near enough: you have to play a significant part. As to WP:NACTOR, the requirement is Has had significant roles in multiple notable films. Since three of his films have articles, we'll call them notable, but he isn't even listed among the cast of two of them, and roles like "mercenary" and "FBI agent" don't sound like significant parts to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 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 speedy delete per WP:G11. XOR'easter (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Mouna Gummadi[edit]

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

Had done costume designing only in a single movie. Hence fails NENT. Also no reliable sources were also found on doing a WP:Before to establish general GNG criteria Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:12, 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. ✗plicit 12:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nandapal Mahathera[edit]

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

Religious leader whose notability is not established by article or references. This article is obviously incomplete, with empty sections. It was also evidently written to praise its subject rather than describe him neutrally. Moving the incomplete article into draft space would be appropriate, except that the originator has also created a draft, either out of impatience, or in order to game the system.

This article was tagged for deletion as an unsourced BLP once, and sources were added, but do not make the article ready for mainspace.

The draft is a copy of the third reference, and has been tagged for deletion as copyvio.

A very brief check of the references shows that they do not provide independent significant coverage.

Reference Comments Independent Significant
1 In Bengali. Machine translation says that subject preached. ? No. Passing mention.
2 Appears to be local newspaper. No. Editoral reportage praising the subject at length.
3 Own web site. Copied by draft. No
4 Appears to be local newspaper. Yes? No. Could not find mention of subject.
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is nothing asserted to be special about this figure as compared to the field of religious figures. BD2412 T 03:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sign of Notability Dam222 🌋 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marygiri Senior Secondary School, Sreekandapuram[edit]

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

The only source in the article is giving a routine coverage. On doing a WP:Before, I got the school website and some list of school rating. This fails NORG as well as GNG Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the only independent, reliable source I could find. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I could find is a trivial article about them postponing an exam. So this clearly the notability guidelines as a topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm finding zero non-trivial coverage. Unless we're all missing something obvious, this is a clear GNG fail. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:16, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_April_20&oldid=1021025720"