Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 21	April 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tatu, California[edit]

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

Topos show an isolated station/water stop, and I found the usual California regulation decision about closing it. Searching is somewhat problematic for reasons which weren't particularly clear, but nothing shows this to be a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. jp×g 00:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. jp×g 00:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My own analysis of the topographic maps brings me to the same conclusion: this doesn't ever seem to have been anything. As for the garbage search results, finding sources for geostubs like this is always a pain in the arse because so many websites auto-generate pages based on the same GNIS data (not to mention the vast amount of websites which auto-mirror Wikipedia pages, lol). jp×g 00:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe Mangoe was distracted by All the Things She Said on a loop whilst reading the search results. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Uncle G: lol jp×g 17:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old newspapers results identify it as a minor rail stop/station. At first, I thought I had found some decent coverage, but it turns out the article I found titled for Tatu only really had one or two sentences about Tatu and the rest was about an unrelated native tribe. Doesn't seem to be notable. Hog Farm _Talk 00:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely a railway station, as well as the name of the adjacent creek. Helpfully, the 1927 Rider's California: A Guide-book for Travelers has a description on page 127 of the railway line, listing the stops successively as Farley, Tatu, and Dos Rios. It gives distances and elevations for all of the stops, but only for Dos Rios, California does it give a population of 217.
Mangoe, if Farley, California was about to be next on your list, I found at the same time Lyman A. Palmer's 1880 History of Mendocino County that outlines the boundary of its school district on page 153.
Uncle G (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This station stop is only of minor notability.TH1980 (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:04, 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 23:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Tabor[edit]

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

Fails WP:Author, WP:NPOL & WP:GNG. Reads like a promo created by SPA. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of his political activity passes WP:NPOL — people do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in political party primaries or municipal council elections, or for being a backroom campaign consultant to other unsuccessful candidates, or for being local chair of a political party's local chapter in a county — but the stuff about his work as a writer is referenced to primary sources and a Q&A interview in which he's the speaker and not the subject being spoken about, which is not how you get a writer over WP:AUTHOR either. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat, who always makes these fails NPOL/GNG deletion rationales more eloquently than I. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator, and would be a snow keep. Mike Peel (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starship HLS[edit]

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

In my opinion, although the subject is fairly notable, pretty much the entirety of this article is covered by (and copied over from) the Artemis program#Human Landing System and SpaceX Starship articles. Frankly, I believe we haven't had enough information on the vehicle for it to warrant a separate article just yet. I believe that in the future, as we have more information on the actual vehicle, this article would be warranted. Osunpokeh (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have articles for Dynetics HLS and Integrated Lander Vehicle. Those lost out on the $2.9 billion HLS contract and it isn't clear if they have any future. If we have articles for the losers, then we should have article for the winner. Article was a redirect until today 22 April, seems to me like we should allow time for page to develop and work out where detailed and summary information go. C-randles (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is clearly notable, and covered by many reliable sources. It also clearly belongs to Wikipedia. I am not sure what's the basis for this AfD really. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable subject per nom. I really don't see a valid WP:DEL-REASON here. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG as per current coverage. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable per WP:GNG. Can't imagine that a new US$2.9 billion expenditure of taxpayrer money on a new model of spacecraft that includes TWO flights to the Moon, with one of those flights carrying two astronauts as passengers, would not be worthy of a Wikipedia article. As for having enough information? The article has 16 sources, nearly all secondary. It's been in the news for a year and a half now. Wikipedia has articles on garage bands with only a couple of sources from local news media. N2e (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with previous keep votes. They won the contract and it's different enough from normal Starship to merit a separate article. Rainclaw7 (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the article started largely as a copy of other articles is not a problem per se; it's true that we don't want duplication, and if it were likely that this article would merely duplicate information from elsewhere it should be deleted. But this is not the case. The subject is notable and there is widespread interest about it, I think it will quickly grow to have a life of it's own. Perhaps the creation of the article was a bit premature, given the scarcity of details about the vehicle, but the prematurity is not bad enough to violate WP:TOOSOON. Tercer (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was actually going to create a draft about Starship HLS. I think that this is a mistake proposing a deletion. I suggest to decide not to delete it but revisit it as the article matures.

64.121.103.144 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, A notable topic, article has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above arguments have already stated BlunanNation (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it was made early and we dont have much info now, that will not always be the case and it won't be the case for too long, and as the only HLS proposal selected it is definitely notable Kadermonkey (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very notable step in the program; different from prior Artemis work; different from StarshipFeldercarb (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are similarities between this article and those about other Starship variants, it is a distinct and notable enough spacecraft to merit its own article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm really late to this discussion. So far, it appears that the consensus solution of reducing the SpaceX Starship#Starship Human Landing System and Artemis program#Starship HLS and adding redirects here seems good. Withdraw AfD.

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Time[edit]

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

There is no evidence in the article (or searchable on the web) that "Old Time" means "turn of the century". Since the claim is not sourced, the article, which is based on the claim, should be removed. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. The entire concept of the article, that the term specifically refers to a specific time period, is completely unsourced, making this WP:SYNTH. The only sources are for the "Popular Culture" section, and not only are none of them from reliable sources, they don't actually define the term in any meaningful way. Rorshacma (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. "Old-time" and "old-timey" just refer to an earlier era, not necessarily the specific earlier era the article states, and there's no sources provided that address the term as specifically referring to that era. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:34, 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 no consensus. Fenix down (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Boakye-Yiadom (footballer)[edit]

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

Despite making three appearances in an WP:FPL league. Most of his sources seem like WP:ROUTINE sources and possibly doesn't pass WP:GNG with that. HawkAussie (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Passing WP:NFOOTBALL only means that the subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline, not that he does. Most of the sources are game recaps, database listings or articles on teams sites that are not independent of the subject. This is probably the best source in the article and this is the best I found in a Google search. I am more than happy to change my vote if someone has a better luck than me finding sources. Alvaldi (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - player actually has 4 apps for a professional club, meeting NFOOTBALL by some way - and has ongoing career, albeit at a lower level. Article needs improving, not deleting. WP:BEFORE clearly not complied with, again. Giant Snowman 10:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is enough for me in the article say see he gets a pass on GNG, and he just qualifies under NFOOTY in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Weirdly, I did actually see him play his only league game for Barnsley. Per GiantSnowman and Govvy, he passes NFOOTY and, though a little marginal, there are probably just enough sources out there for a GNG pass. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus as yet and to my mind a lot more needed from the keep voters. Yes the article has a lot of sources in it but which ones help satisfy gng? What I am seeing is a lot of primary sources, routine match reporting which doesn't discuss the individual in detail and stat sites. Not really seeing where the significant coverage is. Also, the argument that he should be kept because he scrapes over the NFOOTBALL threshold and has an ongoing career is laughable as he is currently competing for Barking in the 8th tier, four tiers below the level that is considered fully pro and has been in non league football for years.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: polite reminder that your job when reviewing/closing an AFD is to objectively assess the consensus in the discussion, not impose your own opinion. Giant Snowman 08:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG...--Ortizesp (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played a game of professional football for 7 years and no significant coverage has been demonstrated. I tried a few search engines but could only get hits about the much more famous namesake, after excluding match reports, transfer announcements and database profile pages in Soccerway etc. This might be significant coverage in the Sheffield Star but I can't access it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would consider these significant coverage, and they are generally cited on the page: 1, 2, 3 - and no, I don't think transfer coverage highlighting the players career as WP:ROUTINE.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We would generally discount the Barnsley FC source due to not truly being an independent source, even though the coverage is good. The other two are okay-ish coverage-wise, not clear cut GNG. There's clearly enough consensus for now for the article to be kept, anyway, but I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up back at AfD in a few years if his career doesn't head back to NFOOTBALL levels anyway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, no sigcov foundable, several years w/o a play, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources proffered above are routine and not SIGCOV (or are not independent). 5 sentences relating to a transfer is decidedly not in depth, and even if the Barking article wasn't hyperlocal transfer coverage it's strictly a proseified list of his former clubs and injury reports -- identical information to that in stats databases, which do not contribute to SIGCOV. And Barnsley FC is very obviously not an acceptable source for establishing notability. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's enough of a WP:NFOOTY pass and enough written about him to scrape the article over the WP:GNG line, even if a couple better sources are needed in the article as it is. SportingFlyer T·C 18:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We establish clear black lines like WP:NFOOTBALL to avoid spending month-long debates like this. It's a clear pass, with a year and 4 appearances in a fully-professional squad, and there's been continuing media coverage of this player in subsequent years that's borderline GNG. There's more than enough material available on-line to flesh out the article, and provide more references. I've improved and added additional references. We'd also be better served if during this month-long debate, that there was more energy spend improving the article, rather than debating it! Nfitz (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz I'm still not seeing any SIGCOV? Routine play-by-play match coverage and transfer announcements are not nearly in-depth enough for notability even if the subject is prominently mentioned, and combining those sources doesn't magically make such material encyclopedic. Per NSPORT, NFOOTY does not supersede GNG so having played 4 games doesn't mean he deserves a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Routine play-by-play match coverage isn't significant, but printed newspaper articles about things like hat-tricks are. Corporate transfer announcements aren't significant, but national media coverage of transfers is. Also note, that as per WP:N, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if" it either meets GNG and SNG. By meeting WP:NSPORT, SNG is met, and GNG is indeed trumped. Now you would be correct, that if NSPORT was met, and there weren't actual sources to write anything, then the article should be deleted, but I'm finding more than enough coverage of this person over the last 7-8 years to flesh out an article. Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That article is still a routine play-by-play match report; his being in the headline is immaterial to the lack of in-depth coverage of him overall, and it's also irrelevant that it appears in a printed newspaper article (especially since it's a special-interest newspaper devoted specifically to all levels of UK non-league football; it might be different if it was a headline in The Times in a non-sports section). And being "national" doesn't magically make trivial mentions somehow SIGCOV. Of course you can find abundant coverage of the plays this or any other player, league or non-league, made throughout his career; but per NOTNEWS that material is not encyclopedic unless it garnered unusually substantial in-depth attention in multiple IRS. WP:N is referencing the GNG-independent SNGs with that sentence (NPROF, GEOLAND, the extra requirements for NPOL); NSPORT is explicitly subordinate to GNG, per the very first sentence (emphasis mine): This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The FAQs right at the top of the page even say The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline and eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted the first sentence not the second, which says "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." It says GNG or SNG ... not GNG and SNG. I quickly found dozens of sources. I only opened a couple of them. There's adequate sources to write an article. This wikilawyering over borderline cases needs to stop - it's a waste of everyone's time. I expect given sufficient time, and infinite resources, GNG sources would be found. Nfitz (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. Fenix down (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guildford and Woking Alliance League[edit]

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

Another league that is well below the level for presumed notability as per WP:FOOTYN. Absolutely nothing coming up in Google Books, Google Images or Google News on the league. Nothing in ProQuest either. Results in a British newspaper search were all from the same local paper, the Staines & Ashford News. The coverage in that paper was infrequent and had barely any depth to it. Very rarely did it extend beyond a mere listing of results.

Absolutely no evidence that this meets WP:GNG. Similar case to Wakefield and District Football Association League and Wearside Combination Football League, both of which were at a similar level and also had issues with lack of independent coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't argue with that. JBchrch (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Low level amateur league. Local interest only. Nigej (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, clearly not notable CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent, in-depth coverage StarM 01:43, 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 Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace. History remains undeleted so can be merged if there is anything reliably sourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort Freeman[edit]

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

Does not seem to have any reliable sources on the topic. EpicPupper 21:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are plenty of sources mentioning her as the leader of Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace, eg [1] and [2], but unfortunately mentions only. 15 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Redirect per pburka. 15 (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there's insufficient evidence to support keeping this page, it should be redirected to Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace rather than deleted. pburka (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Women_of_Liberia_Mass_Action_for_Peace#Leaders where she's mentioned. Could add a sentence or two as she's key to the project. StarM 23:59, 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 Speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) Mangoe (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

European Fecal Standards and Measurements[edit]

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

Not notable; article is a single sentence and there are no sources. Should be deleted or redirected to the article about the episode. Partofthemachine (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 20:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 20:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 20:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Norm. TheChronium (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to More Crap the South Park episode in which the fictional element existed. I note that it has been speedy deleted, but I think the redirect is plausible and the fictional element is currently mentioned in that episode plot summary. Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David O. Miller[edit]

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

About 3 years ago, I proded this. It was deproded and taken to draft space. Now, today user:BOZ has brought it back with only minimal improvements. This remains basically an unsourced BLP, with the only source being the subject's own website. The article fails WP:BASIC and should be deleted. Rusf10 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this person is notable based on a search, nor how it can be brought back from draft with the only source being the article subject's web site. Perhaps there is something important that has not been stated in the article?--- Possibly (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without independent RS. Theredproject (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IceWelder [✉] 09:01, 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 redirect to Masami Akita discography#As Merzbow. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13 Japanese Birds[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and I could find no notable, independent sources. Almost all of the references are to reviews on Allmusic or Musique Machine and to the label's site. The article was previously nominated and deleted, and notability was discussed on talk page in 2011. Since then there has been no improvement in references. Pmepepnoute (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Pmepepnoute (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Masami Akita discography#As Merzbow. This is a common solution for several album AfDs we've seen recently for this preposterously prolific musician. (363 studio albums, including 9 so far this year!). For this particular article, the focus is on the 15-album series, and some of the included albums got reliable reviews and could possibly stand as singular album articles, but the series as a whole did not receive reliable and significant coverage in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:48, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Gilmore Richardson[edit]

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

BLP of Philadelphia city councilwoman. Does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I see it, this passes WP:NPOL– " A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." There's two features from different publications, I just added a national source. The at-large councilmembers in Philly represent 1.5M people, which seems significant. This councilmember is the youngest Black woman to have been elected to city council, which also seems notable. The article's got 15 secondary sources so far. Narsk (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per WP:NPOL, because she "has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists," and per WP:BASIC, because If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, e.g. 1, 2, 3. Her work has also been covered by CNN and the Associated Press. Beccaynr (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the coverage demonstrated by Beccaynr appears sufficient for a city councilwoman of an arguably major city like Philadelphia. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:13, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marita Black[edit]

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

This article used to have a lot more content but it got trimmed, presumably due to being badly sourced and violating our WP:BLP policy. Black is potentially non-notable and does not apparently meet WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG.

Looking at this old revision, we know that she was in a band called Lust Pollution, but I'm not seeing much in terms of WP:RS coverage about that band, not enough to make her notable in her own right as the singer anyway. Her acting career seems to have only one role that could be argued as significant; a teacher in one series of Grange Hill. She does not have the multiple roles required.

Her work in the field of hypnotherapy also doesn't seem to be enough. Only passing mentions in a newspaper search. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:Basic is not passed at this time. Also only one prominent role so does not meet the criteria of WP:NACTOR in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:20, 30 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 23:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Lacsamana[edit]

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

Article has been tagged with notability issues since 2009. There is one reference, which is a deadlink. I cannot find anything to add. Artist does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST. Tacyarg (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing at all found in a search.--- Possibly (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found some images of his paintings on social media sites, with no context whether or not these are in important collections or exhibitions. No record of an exhibition record or publications about this artist. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is one reference. There are more, but they are very poorly formatted. The article makes the claim that his one of his works is published in the Encyclopedia of Philippine Art. Presumably, that is the CCP Encyclopedia of Philippine Art, which, in addition to a print edition also has a digital edition at https://epa.culturalcenter.gov.ph/encyclopedia/. Vexations (talk) 12:13, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fengyou essence[edit]

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

Non-notable medicine. The article does not cite any non-Chinese sources. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references do not need to be in English. There are many Google Scholar hits for the Chinese term "风油精". (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22%E9%A3%8E%E6%B2%B9%E7%B2%BE%22&btnG=) At least some are medical type articles, and others are chemical analyses. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of better sources. The website link seems to be a WebMD-type blog; not a reliable source. Zero useful sources on Scholar or otherwise on the web, apart from many many sales listings. Realistically, this is because 99% of sources will not use the English name. But then someone with Chinese skills has to do the work and demonstrate the existence of good sources! Note that the Chinese WP entry is equally badly sourced. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was just south of an edit conflict. Yes, if these are good sources then they would of course do. Let me google-translate a few. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alright, that'll do it. In the first two pages of results there are two different component analyses, a case study for therapeutic application, and a mosquite repellent test. Don't think I can fault myself or others for not googling in Chinese, but if someone does, more power to them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Graeme Bartlett. There seem to be enough Chinese-language sources to meet GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NONENG Jumpytoo Talk 20:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the others said, per WP:NONENG, it's allowed. Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 14:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. VocalIndia (talk) 07:33, 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 keep. The consensus is that the subject passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 08:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Ingram[edit]

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

BLP of a school basketball player. Does not pass WP:NCOLLATH. Mccapra (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG with the sources already in the article. Has WP:SIGCOV dating back to 2017. Alvaldi (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing but routine coverage. Does not meet either WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very suprising take because neither A tale of two sons: One a potential pro, the other at Middlebury College from 2017 on The Undefeated and Meet five-star Harrison Ingram, the supersized playmaker considering Michigan from 2020 on mlive.com, can conscientiously be described as routine. Outside of these there are abundance of articles that cover the subject in detail [3][4][5][6][7] Alvaldi (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Alvaldi, passes WP:GNG Sportzeditz (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 13:02, 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 Draftify. You can find the article here: Draft:Ranjitha Menon. Missvain (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjitha Menon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The person did not appear in multiple notable films in significant lead roles. Chirota (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 13:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Only have notable role in a single movie as of now. Others are just some minor roles. This [8] seems to give her some decent coverage (not enough for passing general GNG criteria) and says that two of her Tamil movies are under production. So she will pass NACTOR in near future. Thus this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:05, 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 18:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - WP:TOOSOON, currently fails WP:NACTOR. The article can be incubated in draftspace and moved back once the subject becomes notable. --Ashley yoursmile! 05:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per all above.--Ankit (Talk with me) 20:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics publications (S). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowmasters[edit]

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. There doesn't appear to be any coverage beyond passing mentions. TTN (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of Marvel Comics publications (S) per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE.
Redirect to List of Marvel Comics publications (S) - Of the two sources being used that are not just comics themselves, one is an officially licensed product that only contains plot summary information, and the other has just a brief entry that, aside from plot, just confirms the publication information. Since that information is already present on the main list, I'm not seeing anything that needs to be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. The article only covers things from an in-universe perspective, and is simply plot summary. No real world notability is asserted, and fictional characters need to have real world notability. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Redirects are cheap. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 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. Kinu ^t/_c 20:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even-numbered common year[edit]

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

Completely non-notable, in that I cannot find a single source, RS or otherwise, discussing this as a concept; nor has even one been cited in the article. That's to say nothing of the arbitrariness of the subject, in the first place. Fails possibly any number of things, but I'm moving this on the basis of WP:GNG failure. (And I now realise I don't even know how to delsort this!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: For this one's cousin(s), see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common year where year divided by 4 has a remainder of 1. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article started today, in 2021, tells us with a straight face that the most recent evenly-numbered year was 2018. Writing an entire year out of Wikipedia seems rather an extreme reaction to COVID-19. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Common year, not just year. The year 2020 was a leap year. TompaDompa (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not according to the article, which tells us about "end of century leap years that are common years" and cannot be using that definition. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is already covered in common year in as much detail as needed. Either redirect this or just delete it, there's no need for a separate article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable topic/list, not sure what the purpose of these articles are, or why we have had ones such as Common year starting with Monday/Tuesday/ect... WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @WikiVirusC: Indeed, it might be time to start another AfD for:
  Or perhaps redirect them all to Dominical letter. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those articles are linked from the introduction section of many year articles and give the week pattern for that year's calendar, which isn't totally useless. —Kusma (t·c) 08:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - These are like Wikipedia:WikiProject Time. Would you like to include it in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics ?--SilverMatsu (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Both articles violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE fails and WP:GNG. We don't even need an article for numbers that are congruent to 2 modulo 4, let alone years. There is the faintest alternative to deletion as a redirect to common year, but I doubt that this is a common search term and that the redirect would be useful. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable, no sources. BlueMoon65625 (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete It's a good title, but goes downhill from there, inversely proportional-like to "Man on the Silver Mountain". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no point having this in addition to common year. —Kusma (t·c) 08:46, 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. Passes WP:GNG. Please improve using the found sources. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lumina Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:IS, WP:SIGCOV. Moreover, to echo Nwfirststreet's recent edit comment, "a very simple and very brief off-wiki investigation will show an inappropriate link between the subject of this article and one of its primary contributors". Paradox society 16:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 16:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is some significant coverage [9], the same RS also calls the Foundation "prominent" ([10]). Also a Chronicle article entirely about one of their programs [11]. Borderline case, but should be notable. 15 (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs work/expansion but I am seeing WP:RS (some favorable, some not) discussing the org and its activities, including Forbes [12], Salon [13], Buzzfeed [14], Indy Star [15], James Martin Center [16], Forbes again [17], and National Review [18] to support a case for WP:GNG. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:54, 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 23:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judy M. Kerr[edit]

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

Has one book out, which got some minor awards, but not enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR, and searches turned up virtually nothing about her, so she doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as the available references concerned, Judy M. Kerr has written only two books which doesn't have much receptions. Her other works did not attract much coverages to pass WP:GNG. Chirota (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO, I believe I have been updating, correcting, and occasionally creating wikipedia pages for at least 13 years, focusing the majority of my interest on LGBTQ+ issues, organizations, and creatives. It's only lately that I've been hit with deletion notices and accusations of conflict of interest. One of the things I have always enjoyed and respected about Wikipedia is that there is a place for all notable people, projects, and subjects, but lately, it seems that if it's lesbian-related, that no longer applies. I feel grave concern about this.

Here are just some of the hundreds of one-book entry authors whose pages do not look all that much different from Judy M. Kerr's page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Shaffer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Wilkinson_(writer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Englehardt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Basil_Edwards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wroblewski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsten_Bakis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_T._Powers

What do all of these pages have in common? All the writers are straight/heterosexual. Like Ms. Kerr, they have only written one book. Unlike Judy, they received mainstream press because they are not lesbians.

I don't know if any of the editors here understand how difficult it is for a talented author writing about lesbian issues to get published, much less receive hordes of notice from the mainstream. So what happens is "minority" authors and poets and artists and musicians who don't receive big-time awards or haven't been immortalized in a movie have a great deal of difficulty receiving any recognition.

I am willing to track down more information about this author to supplement the page, but it's extremely demoralizing to have an unknown editor here write: "Judy M. Kerr has written only two books which doesn't (sic) have much receptions (sic)." Of course she doesn't! She's writing lesbian characters and topics to which the mainstream pays token attention.

One of my new year's resolutions was to create a dozen pages about lesbian authors who have written - ARE writing - some amazing works. Every time I create a page about a small-press little-known but talented author, are you going shoot down the entry because the author is not notable enough? If so, please tell me now and I'll just stop adding and updating information throughout Wikipedia. Sincerely, Dmthompson (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dmthompson, thanks for your candid and passionate comment. While I extend my best wishes for your standpoint and efforts, in Wikipedia, we are guided by a set of guidelines which have developed over time and the adherence is needed to ensure the quality and authority of this encyclopedia. While assessing the notability of a subject, we need to be very objective and evaluate if the subject is passing the bar of notability. Regarding the specific domain in which you decide to write, please take your time to see the pages under "Category:Lesbian writers", who beside being declared lesbian, have received considerable reception for their literary works and secured place in Wikipedia. Chirota (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom and Chirota; I have also not been able to find sufficient sources to support notability per the WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BASIC guidelines. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and it therefore appears to be WP:TOOSOON for this article. Beccaynr (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG. I was unable to find RS coverage of Kerr beyond a brief mention of a book store event. 130.245.192.7 (talk) 21:07, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prema Sridevi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor to showcase a CV. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:All the sources are just talking about something else rather than the subject. Some does not even makes mention on her. This seems like a puff piece to me. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject was accused of stealing data and hence would be covered under WP:BLPCRIME. This cannot be used to establish notability. The other sources don't satisfy WP:SIGCOV either individually or collectively. Fails WP:GNG and the simpler WP:BASIC. VV 15:51, 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 redirect to DD Free Dish. ✗plicit 03:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABZY Dhakad[edit]

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

If I tag for CSD or PROD is will get removed by the creator. This is clearly not notable. Noah ^💬 13:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I was reviewing this at the same time as the nominator. A redirect to DD Free Dish would work, the channel is listed there as one of their offerings. I can't find any WP:CORPDEPTH sources, and we don't seem to have an article about the company that apparently owns the channel. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DD Free Dish: Nothing to show any notability, suggested redirect target works for me, delete otherwise Ravensfire (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DD Free Dish : Not notable but the reasons above show why we should redirect to DD Free Dish. SVcode(Talk) 14:49, 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. APpears to pass WP:TVSHOW. Please improve using the found sources. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paano Kita Mapasasalamatan? (Philippine TV program)[edit]

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

No WP:RS, even author admitted on another AFD that he can't find one. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These articles all need to go. Unsourced. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are more of these on Wikipedia, just keep searching... —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is also tackled about at Iba 'Yan! AFD, I added a reliable source for this there. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As demonstrated on that AFD, all sources added there are far from ever being reliable. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck: Please see the reliable sourced at the Iba 'Yan! AFD, there is also a nominated reliable source for Paano Kita Mapasasalamatan? (Philippine TV program) since this and Iba 'Yan! has the same issue. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SeanJ 2007: Is there anything that you cannot understand with "As demonstrated on that AFD, all sources added there are far from ever being reliable."? Calling it a "reliable source" does not make it a reliable source. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: On the basis of this article not having any reliable sources (as the other posts mentioned) , and because it has no significant coverage. Other than ABS-CBN, I found a couple of [19] [20] (very likely unreliable) sources that only mention the show in passing. Even if these sources were reliable, the article would still fail WP:GNG as almost all coverage of this is from the network publishing it. HoneycrispApples (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability, lack of reliable sources and completely fails WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources in the article (except YouTube) are reliable, including the ones indicated above. I also found some reliable sources which talk about the show: [21], [22], [23], [24] and [25]. It's also mentioned here as well. Search results also return coverage of certain episodes. Even if these sources are from local media, they're definitely reliable. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:TVSHOW. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These 'sources' are a blurb by the station on its own channel and promos for the program by its presenter. They are not coverage in independent, reliable sources. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Upon research, the subject of the article has been covered by news outlets other than the station. If the creator or other editors are given the chance, these outlets could be cited within the article so as to make it comply with the criteria of having an independent reliable source. Gardo Versace (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed on Gardo Versace's decision, because this program might do something with a reliable source on it. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This deletionist attitude on notable TV programmes should be tamed (perhaps deletionism may fare well for unsourced/promotional articles of some Philippine schools, or for unsourced defunct programmes with no chance of coverage like ABS-CBN News Advisory). A search on Google with keywords "Paano Kita Mapasasalamatan <name of a news outlet>" yields more sources that may support this article, arranged in order of strength of the sources:
https://manilastandard.net/mobile/article/340144
https://www.pep.ph/guide/tv/151975/judy-ann-santos-new-show-a724-20200611-lfrm
http://pageone.ph/juday-honors-female-soldier-3-selfless-moms-in-paano-kita-mapasasalamatan/
https://entertainment.inquirer.net/378081/ang-probinsyano-other-abs-cbn-programs-to-return-as-new-channel-set-to-emerge
https://www.pep.ph/pepalerts/pep-troika/judy-ann-santos-tears-shows-closing-a4118-20200719

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The only WP:RS among these is this PEP source. This Inquirer source discusses the show trivially, and focuses on the new channel. The rest are unsigned praise releases. If you guys are okay with a single WP:GNG source, that's quite pitiful. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  If this deletionism on TV programs will persist, then someone bold enough should nuke News Patrol as well. It is unsourced, much more problematic than this article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Also care to nominate Patrol ng Pilipino for deletion? It only contains a single PEP.ph citation, and has a self-published reference (from ABS-CBN News). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Enforcing WP:GNG and WP:RS is not "deletionism". Philippine entertainment articles have been crap for the longest time by not following basic referencing requirements. Philippine sports programs are much better referenced and written than these, and no one's pushing for their deletion. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck: If that is a reliable source, then let's add it at the article. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SeanJ 2007: This statement confirms my suspicion you really haven't read and understood WP:RS. Also, a single WP:RS isn't good enough as per WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first vote withdrawn with almost slightly passes WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG, but be mindful of these sources as they're some articles were just "copied" contents from the original one while doing upon research. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:TVSHOW with sources presented above. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Mosunmola Umoru[edit]

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

A non-notable agriculturist and business person that doesn't meet WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. Possible covert advertising. TheChronium (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Furthermore the intimate knowledge of the subject of their article may be indicative of a conflict of interest. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Coverage exists but only these 1 2 3 provide significant coverage. 2 is not exactly a RS so just one more RS that covers her in detail will change my vote to keep. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 15:42, 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 13:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Champions Classic[edit]

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

Two regular season college basketball games, not notable enough for a stand-alone article. WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 12:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:LASTING impact or possibly even WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Coverage at Champions Classic or a specific team season, e.g. 2013–14 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team, is sufficient without needing a dedicated article on a given season's games.—Bagumba (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:17, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pissing Razors[edit]

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

Just a random band, not enough to demonstrate notability per WP:BAND. The whole history is also completely unsourced. FMSky (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BAND#5 with three releases on Spitfire Records and three on Noise Records. A very quick search found this, this, this and this for starters. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the above linked sources they also have an AllMusic staff written bio and a staff review here, so they pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* Easily passes WP:BAND based on a rudimentary search. Page needs a lot of cleanup and needs flags, but not deletion. Redoryxx (talk) 04:09, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchy Data[edit]

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

Non-notable company that has no credible sources to support it. From a search on google news results are just PR-publications. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:N. TheChronium (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and all sources I can find are WP:PRIMARY including re-distributed press releases. Recent contract with US Air Force in 2021[26] but it is in fact a minor player among dozens [27] so not notable. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Anton.bersh (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:10, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Măgerușan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as his only appearances to date are 112 mins in a semi-pro league three years ago.

A Romanian search yielded a passing mention in a list of players, a Digisport passing mention, a brief quote about almost joining Sheffield United and a Q&A. The Q&A is the only thing that comes close to WP:GNG but it's just the player talking about himself. I couldn't find any evidence of independent sources discussing Măgerușan in enough depth for GNG. Also worth noting that GNG says There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Since he doesn't meet the SNG, I would expect a clear GNG pass for the article to be kept, which doesn't seem to be the case from what I can see. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG and NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:33, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ludvig Johansson[edit]

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

Totally fails WP:GNG. Footballer who has played only 58 minutes of football, ever, of which 44 minutes in a fully professional league. His teams in 2020 or 2021 were so minor they are not listed on Soccerway. Geschichte (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as, while he passes NFTOOY and is only 22, he is currently a free agent, and has last played for Ullareds IK in the 2020 Swedish 4th tier. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman, fails GNG JW 1961^Talk 20:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY, and still has active career.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:31, 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) TheChronium (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tendencia band[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable band in Cuba. Possible WP:PROMO, doesnt meet WP:NMUSICBIO, "most important band in Cuba", "Most important band in Latin America this are weasel words repeated in the article.

From a search on Gnews you can find almost nothing for a band that is expected to be "the most" known band in Latin America. TheChronium (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - If this article survives it needs to be cleaned up drastically, especially the title. Yes it is loaded with weasel words and is probably copied from a poor translation of their website. But the band really does have some reliable coverage. In English they tend to receive relatively brief mentions in stories that are about the Caribbean or Latin American metal scenes (many of these are already in the article), but they occasionally get more extensive descriptions like in this one: [28]. They have received more dedicated and non-trivial coverage in their country's media, such as these: [29], [30], [31]. Whether those Cuban sources are truly reliable, I will leave for further debate. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Doomsdayer. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep: Doomsdayer520 has said it all really – it needs a serious clean-up, but they've gained enough attention outside their home country to have had their debut album reviewed in Germany's leading heavy metal magazine [32]. I would imagine that being a metal band in Cuba is not common in that country, and to have stuck around for 20 years under a communist government unsympathetic to their style of music would indicate they are one of the leading exponents of the genre in that country. It's also unlikely that they would have been given much coverage in national media, or that for most of their existence there was much in the way of media that wasn't controlled by the government anyway. The fact that they have been mentioned outside of Cuba in respected metal magazines like Metal Hammer and Rock Hard suggests that they do have some degree of notability internationally. Richard3120 (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer to clean up the article if it survives this process, and thanks to Richard3120 for the additional German reference. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as Metal Hammer, Rock Hard and cuban sources that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 30 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. I'm going with User:No_such_user on this. If anyone wants to examine merging, please discuss on the appropriate talk page. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jelen pivo[edit]

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

Blatant promotion. Likely not notable. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Apatin Brewery. It looks notable, as it appears frequently cited as a popular beer in Serbia and the former Yugoslavia. A cursory search in Google, Google News and Google Books yields a good number of sources in English, Serbo-Croatian and other languages. Someone who speaks Serbo-Croatian might be able to help identifying which of these sources are reliable. In any case, in its current state, it's redundant with Apatin Brewery. MarioGom (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom:I think you're perhaps getting some false positives given that both words ('jelen'/deer and 'pivo'/beer) are quite common on their own and often used elsewhere. I speak Serbo-Croatian, and I don't see many reliable sources that are taking about the brand itself. There are few, but they appear to be native advertising efforts. I cannot find anything that I'm satisfied is sufficiently independent. Melmann 11:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm using quotes ("jelen pivo") and the first pages are true positives. Although most mentions of the brand itself (books from the 1980s up to date) are in passing. So a redirect to Apatin Brewery looks like the obvious action IMHO. MarioGom (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it appears to fail WP:GNG. All the sources I was able to identify are likely to be promotional in nature. Melmann 11:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Riteboke (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the major beer brand of Serbia and former Yugoslavia. It's obvious that "sources I was able to identify are likely to be promotional" when it's a major commercial product with ads and promotions everywhere. From just a cursory search for "non-promotional sources":
- Listed as one of Serbian Superbrands: http://www.superbrands.rs/images/bible/66-67jelen.pdf
- Coverage in prestigious Politika: [33] (on the brewery acquisition), [34] (state of beer market in Serbia)
- Coverage in reliable B92: [35] (on Export to Cuba, 2008), [36][37] (on new branding, 2009), [38] (on beginning of production in the Trebjesa brewery, 2008)
- Coverage in Blic: [39] 2018 General sponsorships of the Serbia national football team, marketing campaign signed by Dragan Bjelogrlić.
- etc. Open any Serbian news website and there will be plenty of coverage. Granted, a lot of it is commercial chaff, but there is enough grain accumulated over the years.
I'm not against the merge with Apatin Brewery, but the brand is arguably more famous than the brewery itself, and the two are intrinsically linked. But suggesting that it "fails" GNG is preposterous. No such user (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 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 no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. Relisting appears to be of no value, as the discussion has been dormant for over a week, despite a second relisting (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trofeo Spagnolo[edit]

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 17:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick look at the Italian language article shows a number of WP:GNG-qualifying sources. SportingFlyer T·C 00:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 6.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lots of coverage in Italian, see articles like [40] [41] and possibly [42] (ad blocked, so not sure but the start looks promising.) This isn't independent but does describe the cup briefly in English. SportingFlyer T·C 15:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 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. Going with the keeps. Please discuss article improvements and changes on the talk page. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal-Sikh Wars[edit]

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

I'm not sure what needs to be done with this article. I raised the issue on both the Military History and India wikiprojects, but no significant issues were resolved by the limited response, so I think AFD is now the best option.

This article is a mess. First of all, the entirety of the prose is original research, with parts of it having a significant POV, too. What then remains is various lists of battles. Some of these have a Wikipedia article, some others are supported by a reference, but most have neither an article nor a reference. On top of that, a significant part of the references is unreliable (sites like Daily Sikh Updates and Abhipedia).

The biggest problem is, I think, WP:SYNTH: this article basically lumps together all conflicts and battles involving Mughals and Sikhs over the span of almost three centuries and calls it 'the Mughal-Sikh Wars'. There clearly have been various wars involving Mughals and Sikhs, but I don't get the impression that any literature on the topic considers these all to be part of essentially a single, long-running conflict, which this article in its current state does suggest. That doesn't necessarily mean that no article covering all these wars could exist, but I think this one just isn't it.

One alternative to deletion would be to rename to "List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs" or something similar; throwing out all the OR and retaining only a simple list of properly sourced battles. It should be noted, though, that some of the listed battles may not even fit that title: just for example, the Battle of Jajau was part of an inter-Mughal civil war with only secondary Sikh involvement.

These are just my thoughts. Some slightly-more-expert opinions are very welcome. Lennart97 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello Lennart97, what is your opinion on draftification?. Like you said, this article is a whole mess. But I believe someone, who is a good expert in history can fix these issues by removing all the unwanted contents and unrelibale sources. After all, this seems like a good topic. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmorwiki: If all unsourced/unreliably sourced content is removed, what's left is a list of battles, and I think that would be a fine solution, at least temporarily, if appropriately renamed. Anyone could do that very quickly, though. What would take an expert or at least a dedicated editor is re-writing this article as an acceptable-quality broad overview of Mughal-Sikh conflicts by adding reliably sourced prose. I think draftifying wouldn't be necessary for that though, as there seems to be nothing to salvage from this version of the article apart from the list. It may be better to reduce this article to a list of battles, start a separate draft for a proper article if and when someone wants to write it, and merge that draft back into this article when it's ready. Does that make sense? Lennart97 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lean towards keep -- Yes it is synthesis, but any article of this kind inevitably is. It is more in the nature of a list article than a full blown history. Such articles are better for not been too heavily referenced, as the right place for the detailed references is in the articles on specific topics. If (as suggested) there are battles in which the Sikhs were not heavily involved, they can be removed by editing. Certainly an expert will be needed, or someone with access to good quality reference books. I know little of the subject, but assume good faith. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: re It is more in the nature of a list article than a full blown history. The problem is that the article as it is does pretend to be a full blown history. Would you agree with removing the unsourced prose sections and explicitly repurposing the article as a list? Lennart97 (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: There are almost no reliable sources that specifically talk about "Mughal-Sikh Wars" as a collective topic in any detail (cf. Google Scholar), so deletion is probably a valid option. Lennart97's suggestion of moving this to something like List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs (cf. List of battles between Scotland and England) with no prejudice to recreation if reliable sources can be used for a new article here could be a workable alternative to deletion. I have a slight hesitation regarding that though, because if "Mughal-Sikh Wars" isn't notable then a list of such battles may not be either per WP:LISTN. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Willing to vote for Keep, provided more sources are found. I believe the article has enough potential but per nom, the title of the page is not appropriate. I agree with MarkH21's rationale. Chirota (talk) 17:43, 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. Keeping based on improvements made. Please discuss any redirects, mergers, or article improvement issues on the talk page of the article. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-communications signals[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very clear failure of our guideline against having dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Articles need to cover concepts or ideas, not words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Verifiability means that all articles should be sourced. I reviewed this again, and I am still thinking that this is a dictionary definition, and belongs in Wikitionary, not in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Signals intelligence#Electronic signals intelligence. The available sources only seem to discuss non-communications signals within the context of signals intelligence. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: five academic sources located and added with inline citations. These signals and their analysis seem to be a fairly crucial part of SIGINT, and it is quite easy to find this referenced in WP:RS. jp×g 20:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Signals intelligence (or merge to it). The content of this article appears (slightly more briefly) in its lead section. This content might be used to expand that slightly. The definition of SIGINT and ELINT might be used for Wikitionary entries, but I do not know as I do not work on that. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per new sources added by JPxG. Chirota (talk) 17:51, 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. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 06:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gopala Dynasty[edit]

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

I see the existence of few source for the topic but, it is unreachable and as per the history of page it seems that only sockpuppets are editing this article. Due to inaccessibility of the source, rhe POV violation is at peak and article in its initial version when not edited by sockpuppets is in terrible condition. It's not worthy of inclusion in encyclopedia untill an editor who is aware our policies writes it using good sources to serve the encyclopedia. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing admin: Don't confuse it with Pala Empire. It is yet another dynasty (unheard for me, though I am a M.A(history)). Simple google search gives only result about Pala empire and it donot comes except in poor quality websites, which are non historical and donot fulfill WP:HSC. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep three scholarly sources found in English at 1, 2 and 3. Unable to search in Hindi. Mccapra (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I added some sources to the article. The history of this article is interesting; it seemed to had reliable sources, then deleted by and added and deleted.....and bringing it to the current POOR state and finally this deletion discussion. It's pathetic. Someone brave should restore the old version.nirmal (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)was[reply]

-Only those, who has little competency and is aware of the topic. Its related to caste article and many has done WP:POV violating edits here. Heba Aisha (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-Someone brave has reverted it to the pervious version. Thanks. I think its fine and good, although I doubt about the list of Rulers because there is no inline references. I will assume WP:GOODFAITH for now. @Heba Aisha:-Can you specific where did you see violation of WP:POV in this restored version?nirmal (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it looks good now though maybe there is something about those sources that Heba Aisha knows is suspect.Mccapra (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See, the major contributer to this article has been blocked for sockpuppetry. They with their sockpuppet accounts were active on a large number of Yadav related pages. Basically, the disruptive edits include finding pseudo historical origin theory of Yadavs. Thats was my only concern. Anyone who is knowledgeable in Nepal related stuff can express their view.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, hopefully nominator's concerns were addressed and the POV dispute of the content is comparatively in a better state now. Since the rationale did not question notability, keep is my vote. Chirota (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrishni (talk • contribs) 07:21, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiafia[edit]

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

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: WP:BEFORE would have given you lots of Google Books Hits, I added the 2 most important. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The oral literature book being a lot more important than the dictionary. ☺ There's also the dance in Tokelau entry in ISBN 9780824822651, although that title misses out a lot of the stuff in the thing that is not dancing. Uncle G (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline that this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all of Coin945's AfDs from today as a procedural matter. Coin945 has nominated 72 articles in a short space of time with a questionable rationale ("long-term lack of sourcing" -- see WP:NEXIST) and no indication of WP:BEFORE, with Uncle G finding that a number of them can have their notability confirmed on literally the first page of Google results. This is not something the relatively small group of people who work AfD can realistically handle. Vaticidalprophet 11:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article belongs in a dictionary. These is nothing in this article that shows that it is actually covering a notable topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jack Pack Lambert. Just a definition and a bit of trivia. A fiafiasco. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Clearly falls under WP:NOTDICT--Rusf10 (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - This was a good nomination for the wrong reasons. 72 nominations in one day is irresponsible, but a broken clock is right twice a day. This seems like an unimportant concept. We are much more than a dictionary. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep: this may seem like an "unimportant concept" to me as an American, but I imagine it matters to the people of Tokelau. There are three references here, everything is verifiable; it's just a stub. jp×g 01:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a dictionary definition, even if this was "Tokelau wikipedia", I would vote the same.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please familiarize yourself with Project:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy and what the difference between a stub and a dictionary article actually is. You are getting it wrong. Uncle G (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Update. The article has just been improved with new references. I think it is fair to say that this is definitely NOT an unimportant topi. My WP:BEFORE was not sufficient. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To quote from WP:DICDEF: Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. This is not the case here, though I see how the pre-expansion version of this article gives that immediate impression. I commend the finding of sources that should have been found WP:BEFORE. — Goszei (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the state of the article before the additions, it did seem like just a dictionary definition, but it's sourced now, and it's clear it isn't just a DICDEF. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coldest Winter (song)[edit]

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

This article clearly does not pass WP:NSONGS, as it has not charted, was covered by merely one group, received no awards and West only used a slightly altered version for the music video. I propose a redirect to 808s & Heartbreak and do regret creating this article, but that was back when I was less experienced on here and made articles for nearly every song I heavily liked. K. Peake 09:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --K. Peake 09:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --K. Peake 09:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect not sure why I was tagged on this one, since I never edited the article, but I agree that looking at the coverage, there does not appear to be sufficient coverage of the song to merit a standalone article. Like everything else there's a learning curve with notability. (t · c) buidhe 09:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe Sorry about the confusion, the tag was done because you have been a regular contributor to AFD discussions. --K. Peake 10:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to 808s & Heartbreak - While there are standalone articles about the song from Pitchfork, Billboard, MTV News, and Stereogum, and some decent coverage in a Billboard piece, they could be accommodated on the album article. Since the only major contributor to the article has proposed the redirect, I am comfortable supporting it. Though, in the future, it may be okay (even preferable) if you redirect these without an AfD.--N Ø 09:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the standalone coverage provided by NØ plus the fact that the song's music video was on a 2018 list of best Kanye videos by Complex. More significantly, GQ also ranked this one of the best all-time tracks about isolation in 2020. It is also in a lot of retrospective best-of lists of winter songs from as recent as this year with Time Out's list; Glamour (2014), NME (2018), East Bay Times (2019), and The Arizona Republic (2015). There is Academic literature as well. All of this, plus the fact that you can the song still talked about in modern times with coverage found in a GNews search, indicates long-lasting and independent coverage. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The "academic literature" is just passing mentions which are not counted for notability. (t · c) buidhe 11:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notwithstanding my respect for the fact that the nominator wants to delete an article they created, that they are the biggest contributor to, and that when it was previously at AfD, they literally saved it from deletion, the sources extant to the article, as well as those provided above by the guy with the weird sig suggest that, NSONGS apart, the article passes WP:GNG. ——Serial 11:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 Thank you offering your opinion, but I acknowledged my history with this article in the summary of AFD if you wish to check that... --K. Peake 19:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kyle Peake; I'm sure your opinion is as valuable now as it was last time. Cheers! ——Serial 20:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The song passes WP:NSINGLE per sources provided by MaranoFan. Chirota (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Serial. – zmbro _(talk) 18:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - The Pitchfork and Stereogum source mention the video and that's it. The first Billboard and MTV have decent coverage on the video, the second Billboard mention its an album review, which doesn't contribute for WP:NSongs. Complex is just a list of videos of Kanye. The list of GQ and Glamour make no mention of the song besides the playlist a brief mention on Time Out and on AZ Central, NME and EBT all mention and say the same things over and over again. Like buidhe said "the "academic literature" is just passing mentions which are not counted for notability." MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really don't like how you're downplaying the significance of the coverage of the all-time winter songs list and the other best-of list. The lists are significance and not just "playlists" of songs, the publications actually ranked them in the top of an all-time list of a type of songs, and years, years later after the track was released at certain points. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't like the way you think those lists are above anything else. They have zero context and they are winter lists. Not best songs of all time. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - MarioSoulTruthFan. I should't have to constantly debunk falsehoods with users that never get the point. They're a list of the best winter songs of all-time. My bologna sandwich "they have zero context and they are winter lists." 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave my opinion, you were the one who started the discussion. They don't offer anything regarding the songs composotion, reception, lyrics, etc. They just say its number 1, 2,3 and so on. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The ranking itself from the reputable publications is the coverage. They don't have to talk about production and composition. They're official rankings by staff of that reputable publication.. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - HumanxAnthro Even though it was me who nominated this article for deletion, I do actually believe these classify as coverage just as much as year-end, decade-end lists, etc do. --K. Peake 07:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG per NØ. SNG's are completely irrelevant if a subject meets GNG. SK2242 (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. LOVI 33 01:18, 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. ✗plicit 08:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syd Howells[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the fact that this has sat for 15 years is really disappointing. No hits in Google Books, Google News, Google Images etc. I found his YouTube channel with 34 subscribers. There is a passing mention in an interview. DDG has nothing on him. The only results in a British newspaper search are rugby-related. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, doesn't have any coverage to qualify for GNG. Purosinaloense T/K 14:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, puh, 15 yrs here, fails clearly WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability. No news comes up in Google. Webmaster862 (talk) 04:36, 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. ✗plicit 08:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Ennamsetty[edit]

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

No encyclopedic significance, as demonstrated by the lead sentence which tells us only where he studied. He was shortlisted for an internal Edinburgh University alumni award, the non-notable Being Edinburgh, and he featured in a news article as the first person in his state (not the world, not even India) to donate plasma for use in convalescent plasma therapy: praiseworthy but not indicating that he should have an article in the encyclopedia. WP:BLP1E perhaps. Article was previously PRODded but was DePRODded by an IP as part of an edit where the only comment was "Fixed fact". PamD 07:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PamD 07:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PamD 07:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Akhil was already mentioned under American Association for the Advancement of Science
Akhil was already mentioned under American Association for the Advancement of Science. Then a page was created. Currently it is too short, but should not be deleted. --Bernburgerin (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bernburgerin: Thanks for drawing my attention to the article American Association for the Advancement of Science which needs a lot of work - unsourced content including "recently" etc. Ennamsetty was mentioned in unsourced content added by an IP in 2015. If that was the source for the statement you included in his article, you might like to check for a more up to date and reliable source. Or amend it to read "was in 2015". Though even that would need a source. PamD 07:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with the nominator. Lacks notability. Couldn’t find anything except that he donated plasma defcon5 (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and as per all above. Fails GNG Purosinaloense T/K 14:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:28, 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 08:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Movement for Compassionate Living[edit]

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

Unconvinced of a WP:GNG or WP:NORG pass. I did a fair amount of WP:BEFORE, including through paywalled archival searches, which turned up mirrors, simple listings, the organisation discussing itself, and a one-line mention in Green Consumerism (2011) by Juliana Mansvelt. Tagged for notability since December 2016. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm finding nothing but occasional trivial mentions, which of course are inadequate under the intentionally strict WP:NORG standard. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG. Wareon (talk) 05:20, 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 procedural close. This should be on WP:RfD instead. The new discussion is on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 22#Pseudoscience (physics). (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience (physics)[edit]

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

Article was redirected to Pseudoscience in December 2020 following discussion on the talk page, arguing that this is a redundant case study with no notability on its own — in other words, this is just the concept of pseudoscience as applied to physics. It was previously called Pseudophysics, but was unilaterally renamed in October 2020 as an apparently made-up neologism. The new title is not a plausible redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While there may (or may not) be a notable topic of pseudoscience related to physics, the extant article is not helpful. (t · c) buidhe 04:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep: this should surely be at "redirects for deletion" (wherever that is, sorry). Frankly it is not worth the electrons to discuss removing redirects, unless they have some real negative effect, which this one does not. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a reason why the AfD tag was added to the page Pseudoscience? That is not the page which has been nominated for deletion. I have removed the tag. Not sure if that's proper, but I'll invoke WP:IAR if necessary. If it's an error, then no worries, I'm just a bit confused. Local Variable (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, I have added the tag to the nominated page. Local Variable (talk) 06:59, 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 merge to Schaffhausen#Politics. Sandstein 09:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Schaffhausen[edit]

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

This is a list of mayors of a tiny little town in Switzerland. Fails WP:LISTN which requires sources that discuss the subject as a group. Rusf10 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Schaffhausen#Politics. Geschichte (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Schaffhausen. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Schaffhausen is a small town whose mayors wouldn't meet WP:NPOL just for being mayors — the only three people here who do have articles all have them for some other reason besides having been mayor of Schaffhausen, such as going on to hold office at the national level, and completely unsourced lists of mostly non-notable people aren't the kind of content we should be retaining. (Unsourced content shouldn't even really be retained in the town's article either, but at the very least it definitely can't stand alone as an independent article without sources.) I don't have a strong personal preference as to whether it gets merged or just deleted, so count me as support for whichever one ends up leading the consensus, but it just can't be kept in this form. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat this isnt just some random town, its the capitol of the the Canton of Schaffhausen (eg State/Province in North America) and has a history going back almost 1000 years. Also it does not seem to be an argument in good faith to say that the list is unsourced, as most of these are easy to source and most of them have articles in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland which would make them notable for Wikipedia. --hroest 18:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A town being the capital of something is entirely irrelevant to whether its mayors clear WP:NPOL or not — being the mayor of a provincial, state or cantonal capital does not inherently make a person more special than the mayor of another town of equivalent size that isn't also a capital of something. And it also isn't my job to assume that sources probably exist — it's job of the sources to be in the article already, not my job to idly speculate about what other sources might theoretically exist beyond what anybody with actual access to the necessary resources has ever been arsed to show. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am just asking for WP:GOODFAITH and I think each of these people is actually notable, I looked them up in HDS and many of them have an entry: [43] [44] are just the first few. Just because only a few of them have articles now does not mean that these are the only notable people. --hroest 15:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Schaffhausen#Politics or history. keep --hroest 18:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found encyclopedic articles or full biographies on a majority of the people listed, I think that a list of notable people is also notable especially as it would actually be a distraction in the main article about Schaffhausen. These articles are in the HLS for the majority of the listed people (8 out of the first 13 people). --hroest 00:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that that is an encyclopedia (at least not a reliable one). According to [45], "The HLS corrects and updates its articles on an ongoing basis. The HLS gratefully accepts the relevant references with source and / or literature references." and "Unfortunately, the HLS cannot conduct research itself. For further information, we therefore refer you to the literature cited in the article." So, it looks like the entries are just based on local history books and that does not establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it's a national dictionary which seems pretty clearly reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rusf10 it is the most comprehensive and authoritative encyclopedia on Swiss History, see Historical Dictionary of Switzerland. It is using a scientific approach and is basically *the* encyclopedia on Switzerland and is funded by the Swiss government and has an editorial team of 40 people. See [46]. I think anybody knowledgeable in Swiss history could attest to that. How is it not reliable, it is written by experts and scientists and has a high level of editorial curation? I dont understand your point at all, they simple describe their guidelines and that they will take input from readers but will not perform further research *for you* (for their readers). Maybe that got lost in translation? Or maybe I am misunderstanding your point? see "Rückmeldungen zu Artikeln". Inclusion in a selective and curated encyclopedia is generally a good sign of notability, isnt it? --hroest 20:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is basically that because the Lexikon accepts information from the public, that it's a self-published source. This is clearly incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a good and intelligent list. It needs expanding with more explanation, but then, that is beyond my scope. I also think each of these people are notable, therefore my vote is keep. Greetings --Huligan0 (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Merging can be a form of keeping, or retaining information if you will. I cannot see the need for a standalone list when it fits so nicely into the merge target I suggested. Geschichte (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have a few faults with the nomination, specifically trying to claim the Swiss historical dictionary isn't reliable and referring to Schaffhausen as a "tiny town." However, we don't typically allow standalone articles for lists of mayors of towns. While it's not impossible for an exception to be made if the article's good enough, this particular article would clearly fit neatly into the parent article, and upmerging would lose no information. SportingFlyer T·C 20:37, 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 04:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presswood, California[edit]

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

I likely could have put this up for WP:PROD, but at any rate this is a perfect example of a spot on the railroad that has a name simply because operations required it. It's nothing more or less than where the switch to get into the Masonite plant was. The spot is in an otherwise nondescript place on the outskirts of Ukiah that nothing shows to be anything like a distinct settlement, or indeed anything like a town at all. Mangoe (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Unincorporated community" my eye! The article even tells us that it was named after the Presswood™ (i.e. hardboard) that was made from timber waste at the Masonite Corporation plant, as in turn documented in a 1952 report by the California State Water Quality Control Board, and other sources say that it was a railway station at MP 115.8. Uncle G (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, technically, it's just a 'community' part of Ukiah. Example of this is looking up "Presswood" on Apple Maps. Although interestingly, on Google Maps it's actually called 'Presswood, California'. Plus if we keep this, might as well make articles on every small community in this country. JayzBox (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some people seem to want that, but in any case, Google Maps tends to copy stuff from WP pretty uncritically. Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found some passing mentions to the manufacturing plant, as well as some for an overpass, but nothing suggesting that this is a populated community. Hog Farm _Talk 17:37, 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. ✗plicit 04:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foighidinn – The Crimson Snowdrop[edit]

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

Non-notable film. WP:BEFORE only brings up brief mentions in relation to Scottish Gaelic media. Article is unsourced and was likely created by the film's director CiphriusKane (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I added a couple of references but I agree that these are either brief mentions regarding recent Gaelic film or about this film as precurser to the later Seachd, insufficient to demonstrate specific notability. Perhaps a partial merge into Seachd: The Inaccessible Pinnacle may be appropriate? AllyD (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page was created by User:Simondavidmiller. The director was Simon Miller. Likely WP:COI. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet Film notability guidelines. Webmaster862 (talk) 04:40, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spyrock, California[edit]

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

The spot this article is about is plainly an isolated station/siding on a long abandoned rail line; what is a little confusing in the search results is that if you go a short ways down stream, on the opposite side of the river is an outcropping which is also called "Spyrock". Anyway, there are lots and lo0ts of references to this name as a location, but nothing that says it is anything other than a station where people could pick up mail. Mangoe (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You too, eh? I was only a few hours ago using Spyrock to try to find out what River Garden, California (AfD discussion) was. ☺ I think that maybe River Garden station was named after something, but I have no clue what. The Eel River Valley was known for lumber and fruit farming at one point. Spyrock station was possibly named after something, too. Uncle G (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Erwin Gustav Gudde says that the station was named after a rock, where a lookout would be stationed. In the 1950s the USDA Forest Service was offering timber stand maps of Spy Rock, Mendocino. Going back to volume 33 of the Decisions of the Railroad Commission of the State of California this time, I find a decision for "Mendocino County, agency at Spyrock". And then:
Spy Rock
About two miles south of Twin Rocks and thirty-three miles north of Willits a road branches east from the Redwood Highway. About eight miles distant along this road is Spy Rock, an isolated peak in the Eel River Canyon, where Indians in early days built their smoke signal fires.
— Hoover, Mildred Brooke (1937). "Spy Rock". Historic Spots in California: Counties of the Coast Range. Stanford University Press. p. 209. ISBN 9781404750500.
So it is verifiable that this was not an "unincorporated community" but a lumber railway station and … well … a rock, but I have not really found anything else to say about it that supports a non-permastub article.
So will Mangoe go north or south along the railway? South, I see. ☺
Uncle G (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep was a community ([47]) with a school district ([48] - in-depth coverage likely in this six-volume work). Not exactly densely populated, more a collection of ranches, but Spy Rock is notable for other reasons (e.g. a nature reserve). Aside from that Larry Livermore wrote an entire book about the place and the community as it was there in the 1980s.----Pontificalibus 09:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh! Set you on the right trail with Hoover, did I? "spyrock" livermore brings up lists of bankers and lawyers in Livermore for me. It has to have the space. I didn't even know to search for "livermore". And I only get the Spy Rock School in Laytonville. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Argh - I just discovered that most of the stuff I spent time searching out was already detailed on the article's talk page by IllaZilla three years ago! ----Pontificalibus 13:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - We've definitely answered some of the questions raised. You should point your powers at River Garden, California (AfD discussion) too. Maybe it needs two spaces. ☺ I have looked around for just "garden", in that vein. Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, you could possibly rename it to 'Spyrock reserve'. (Nice views up there by the way) JayzBox (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on Pontificalibus' research above which shows extended use as a settlement. Also, the petroglyph site there shows anthropological importance of the location. Netherzone (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On the article's talk page you'll find several leads I put there a few years ago with ideas as to how to flesh out the article with the kind of information you'd find in most articles about towns/communities. I've done a good deal of light internet searching for information about it in the course of rewriting the biography of Larry Livermore (see my userspace draft of that if you like). It's not really a town, more of a community of agriculturists and mountain folk, but it appears to have some history worth discussing. Some geological formations (the "spy rock" itself, Iron Peak), some petroglyph sites, a school, that sort of thing. And several notable people/entities emerged from or got their start there: Larry Livermore, Tré Cool, The Lookouts, Lookout Records, and Gabrielle Bell. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to pass WP:GNG, irrespective of whether it was actually a town/village or not. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:44, 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 Draftify. Draftifying. You can find the article at Draft:Khetsingh Khangar. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khetsingh Khangar[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and has no sources. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I've Done.)} 16:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I've Done.)} 16:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete with no sources how can anyone prove this is not a hoax?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Hindi Wikipedia article shown that the King is real ruler not a WP:HOAX. I agree that the article needs a rewrite, but I've found enough sourcing to believe this King is strong notable see Thousands of people gathered at the procession to celebrate the birth anniversary of Maharaja Khet Singh Khangar in Banda, [49], [50], [51]. VocalIndia (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Khangar (community). It's a local folk tradition and the original article should be expanded, and corrected, before the creation of a new page, especially one this poor. DrKay (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... agree! This article needs attentions from someone who has full knowledge on Gujarat history. VocalIndia (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Did a WP:Before and lot of images and videos from youtube regarding the subject showed up along with some sources (mostly unreliable). This could be developed into a better article by someone who actually have an idea about Gujarat history. Chances are there for the availability of both online and offline sources in the local language or Hindi. And the sources provided by VocalIndia indicates that the subject was one of a historical figure. So deleting it without giving an option to remodify would be unfair. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify pointing the author to guidelines as to how to write a WP article (for example omitting ! marks). The article makes a lot of extravagant claims, which makes me think there is a Hindutva bias in the article. If kept it needs to be heavily tagged for Verification and proper sourcing. Some of the text appears to be in untranslated Hindi, which will not do. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:10, 8 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) 02:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have cleaned and added some sources for information to the article. Its still a work in progress but it can be improved. I think there is sufficient evidence that he meets WP:GNG and and deserves to be kept. VocalIndia (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- VocalIndia, I appreciate your great effort! But I think this must be presently moved into draftspace so that you or other interested users can work on this article by taking enough time. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki You're also an Indian editor, I see you are one of the best edtors from India, why not make the article better? VocalIndia (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VocalIndia, you mentioned that its still a work in progress. Right? Thats the reason why we have an option to move such articles into draftspace. It is hard to find sources about the subject in this case. It might be available in other local languages. So an expert editor who is interested in this field is needed here. Thats why I said to draftify this article. And by the way, thankyou for your appreciation:) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Current version is enough for Wikipedia's article standard ! VocalIndia (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has been drastically rewritten since its nomination and first relisting. It should be given another look for further consideration. @Johnpacklambert, DrKay, and Peterkingiron: ping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Draftify as requested. I'm not convinced by the available sources and my BEFORE didn't help. But the subject seems notable per how I see few Google search results. Perhaps someone with an interest in Gujarat history can help. Gazal world, Ideas? ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 23:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify As per suggested by all above and let it vet through AFC. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: agree with others. Maybe someone can translate the Hindi article into English. defcon5 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the King of a state, he is notable enough to have his own article. Current version is look notable to me. 185.205.142.76 (talk) 07:25, 30 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 Kraków University of Economics. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Małopolska School of Public Administration of the Cracow University of Economics[edit]

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

All the sources in the article are not independent ones. Nothing else were found on doing WP:Before hence failing GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:GNG. I also nominated it for deletion on pl wiki pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:04:10:Małopolska Szkoła Administracji Publicznej Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie, there is a slight chance someone there will find sources / make valid arguments - it is worth to monitor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kraków University of Economics. KidAd • SPEAK 18:04, 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 redirect to List of Medknow Publications academic journals. Feel free to fix or ping me if that is the wrong redirect. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Biomedical Research[edit]

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

Non-notable journal, fails WP:NJOURNALS.

Used to be a redirect to list of Medknow Publications academic journals, and that's all it should be for now, until it becomes notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virtually unknown journal. For some reason Web of Science doesn't find any papers before 2021, and I can't figure out why not -- maybe it's only just been added to their list of recognized journals. Anyway, the ten papers of 2021 have a grand total of 0 citations. That's not a long enough period for total citations to mean much, but, for comparison, the ten most recent papers in the Journal of Biological Chemistry have been cited six times. Athel cb (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my Delete to Keep on the basis of X2PLod's comments below. Athel cb (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The journal has an h-index of 39, which is acceptable for a journal that was established less than ten years ago[52]. Moreover, it has an i-10 index of 470. This index shows about half of the articles of this journal is cited more than 10 times which is acceptable for a journal based on a country like Iran X2Plod (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2021 (IRDT)

This is a biomedical journal that's not even indexed in Medline. Google Scholar-based h-index calculations will also include all sorts of awful sources, from predatory journals to preprints citations. Putting this into Microsoft Academic gives an h-index of 25. This might be a decent journal, but maybe being decent isn't enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: h-index is problematic when applied to a single researcher, but completely inappropriate to evaluate journals. This journal is not included in any selective database (ESCI even includes some predatory journals and being OA, inclusion in PMC is automatic). WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability, the journal can be in indexed in scopus or medline, Science Citation Index or specific notability. I haven't seen journals included with only Emerging Sources Citation Index or h-index/i-10 index. Applus2021 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to List of Medknow Publications academic journals as preferred WP:ATD. No need to bother AfD with this. ~Kvng (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is Emerging Sources Citation Index of Clarivate is recognised indexing for wiki journal inclusion? Applus2021 (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. ESCI is not very selective and even has been known to include some predatory journals. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As Randykitty pointed out, there are enough difficulties with applying the h-index to individuals, and we've no indication whatsoever that it is helpful when evaluating journals. This journal is not indexed in the selective databases to which we look for gauging journal quality, and it does not appear to be noteworthy in any other way (e.g., having attracted interest for an innovative publishing or review model). Of the three most recent articles, one is about prolotherapy and another is on dry needling, and a little ways down the list we find ozone therapy. They may have a low bar regarding the publication of "alternative" medicine, which means that we should be particularly careful about making them look more respectable than they are. In other words, we really need third-party sources that critically evaluate them before we can write an article. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. This is a directory entry, as it stands. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:53, 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 03:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General Luna Avenue[edit]

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

Possible notability issue, tagged with such since July 2009 (also no verifiable sources). Once PROD-tagged by Doghouse09 on 03:36, 25 August 2020, with rationale "Does not appear to meet WP:GEOROAD, no references found after search; notability tag since 2009", then the PROD tag was removed by Djsasso on 22:06, 28 August 2020, with the rationale "national road so meets georoad". However, it is not listed at the Philippine highway network (perhaps a national tertiary road, but even listed there it will still fail notability guidelines). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:06, 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 03:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Common year where year divided by 4 has a remainder of 1[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This topic fails the GNG since it has not been the topic of coverage in reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page, for the same reasons:

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Utterly trivial example of a modulo operation. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. BlueMoon65625 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not notable. Just a trivial operation in mathematics. SunDawn (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Its.Trei (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary formula for grouping years, with no source based evidence of notability.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utter nonsense (not as in the content is nonsensical, but it's nonsense to have an article that essentially says nothing other than "some numbers when divided by 4 give remainder 1") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just an arbitrary grouping of years. If one analysed the mathematics of years, one could probably find dozens of ways in which the years are linked by a common factor, but the vast majority of these would probably not be notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedia. Rollo August (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even sure articles themselves indicate why subjects are notable, but doesn't pass GNG or any kind of notability for lists. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Even-numbered common year in case anyone's interested; nommed as separate AfD as this one already had several !votes. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even as an enthusiastic lifelong teacher of mathematics, I would say that this isn't notable Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Both articles violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE fails and WP:GNG. We don't even need an article for numbers that are congruent to 1 or 3 modulo 4, let alone years. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It does not make any sense how this could possibly be a relevant subject for an article. jp×g 04:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. jp×g 04:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arbitrary list. Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, no clear indication why this bit of modular arithmetic is important in calendar lore. —Kusma (t·c) 08:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: Very trivial and has no references. It also doesn't go with the norm. SVcode(Talk) 13:43, 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. In the absence of sources, we can't justify keeping this article. Claims that it was a well-known or prolific game studio are, unfortunately, just claims, in the absence of sourcing that backs them up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sogna[edit]

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

Lack of notability, was unable to find any reliable sources. Lots of original research and promotional tone issues, as well as some non-sequitur statements such as "The anime follows the series' most famous protagonist, Carrera, as she accidentally falls in love with a human with only a single penis." Waxworker (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2005-01 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as prolific game maker, but trim to only verifiable info. Geschichte (talk) 11:59, 22 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 and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. I also disagree that being a "prolific game maker" is enough of a reason to Keep, especially seeing as none of the games are notable either. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sogna was a well-known PC game developer best remembered for their Viper series but i agree Geschichte in the sense that the page can be streamlined with references. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KGRAMR: As it stands, the article is entirely unreferenced and I was unable to find any reliable sources to incorporate. Even if sources were found for their games, finding anything that has significant coverage about the company itself seems unlikely. Waxworker (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being wholly unreferenced, with no reliable sources offered in this discussion, it isn't even possible to convert this to a List of Sogna video games. czar 05:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to find anything about the subject, but I failed, finding only passing mentions and listings. It fails WP:NCORP by a long shot sadly. It's telling that not even Japanese Wikipedia covers the subject (but it links to Viper game series article instead). "prolific game maker" and "well-known" (as mentioned by keep votes) means nothing and is a WP:ITSNOTABLE error. Czar pretty much said why this shouldn't be converted to a list, and the fact that none of Sogna's games have an article, drives the list's value even further down. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:01, 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 keep. Fresh sources have been found and the rough consensus is that they suffice to pass the relevant notability guidelines. It remains for these sources to be added to the article. (non-admin closure) —S Marshall T/C 16:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Chad[edit]

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

Current sources cited are now broken links. WP:NALBUM not met Xclusivzik (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources for it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The album did receive contemporaneous coverage. He was interviewed by this source about the album, lots, of, news, pieces on the album that I found within a google search, this album review. Would hope for more than this but at least it's not completely hopeless, plus it might be that we're in the Western world and it's hard to find sources from countries other than your own if you're in North America or the UK. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM with reliable sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources listed above, it appears this one meets WP:NALBUM. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:51, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Altobelli[edit]

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

Recently deleted with 'deleting process' for Wikipedia Italy (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pagine_da_cancellare/Valeria_Altobelli)

TY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.203.241 (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Created for IP based on comment left on my talk page. ~ GB fan 18:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ GB fan 18:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ GB fan 18:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ GB fan 18:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ~ GB fan 18:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the midst of trying to figure out just WTF the history was here, it was originally redirected to her "best friends" article, which is a major clusterfuck from a BLP perspective. But delete per the arguments on itwiki, there's no notability here, she wasn't actually Miss World 2004 or whatever they're claiming. TAXIDICAE💰 18:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete False claim, can't find sources. CSD was the bold route to be taken.Sonofstar (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable for Wikipedia 18:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep Miss World Italy 2004 (look Giada Wiltshire, Claudia Russo, Adele Sammartino, etc..), she is a participant (Big Group) in Kënga Magjike 2021 (Albanian music competition), look roles (important) in television, lead roles in musicals and theatres (here and here), look beauty pageants. She adapts (and sing) in various languages (6 languages sung, 15 spoken and 23 written) I'm Standing With You. --82.51.185.30 (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, there is a remarkable lack of sourcing discussing this. TAXIDICAE💰 17:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example [53] for Kënga Magjike 2021 it'ok? I think it's ok, today I added new sources. --82.51.185.30 (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a reliable source, it's an artist submitted blurb. TAXIDICAE💰 17:43, 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 02:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sobin K Soman[edit]

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

Non-notable film editor, search finds only some passing mentions, and even they are very few and far between. I also don't think the couple of regional awards amount to notability. Fails WP:GNG / WP:FILMMAKER. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: The subject barely passes WP:ANYBIO as he was the winner of Kerala state film award for once. But I could not find any sources where he is the primary topic. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is too short and is generally just not important. DXLB Muzikant (talk) 13:19, 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.