Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 25	April 27 >

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 23:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Worth[edit]

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

Non-notable actress per WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any coverage on the subject, it's a WP:GNG fail for me. Less Unless (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The subject has not played significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows. I could not find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Ashley yoursmile! 14:37, 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 merge to Kidnapping in Nigeria. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 06:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makurdi kidnapping[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DELAY, was draftied to let the story develop some days but the creator confuses Wikipedia with a newspaper, pointing me to WP:RAPID instead of delaying the creation and now arguments that the "standard current event" protection will protect the article from deletion CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1. The Nigerian school kidnapping series, this is the 5th this year and the first four all have articles. 2. Per Sources like the BBC and The Guardian, which are international RS.

Also, what of the original nomination reasoning is actually about the article? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Noticed he mentioned the current event protection. This article did not have any in-line about that. Never got to add the in-line due to the WP:RAPID afd of the article. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my !vote to Merge based on what Fram said below. Elijahandskip (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here is a list of the article "series" Kagara kidnapping, Zamfara kidnapping - ITN, Afaka kidnapping, Greenfield University kidnapping - a few days ago. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kidnapping in Nigeria, which should be rewritten to make it a comprehensive and correct article about the phenomenon. These things happen way too frequently, and the Makurdi one is a small-scale one: having some information grouped in a central article, with separate articles for the major abductions and sections in the main article for the smaller ones, will be a lot more informative and comprehensive. Fram (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to CommanderWaterford (Other editors, please ignore this. I asked a question to CommanderWaterford on his talk page and he firmly told me to put my main question here...I don't think this is the right place, but he wanted it here.)

@CommanderWaterford:, I wanted to discuss with you about your view of WP:NOTNEWS. Some of your latest edits make me think you are mis-interpreting what it means. You were a 'lone wolf' in the recent afd of Rambouillet knife attack...I am excluding the nominator as his comment was a real WP:NOTNEWS that was fixed. You also nominated for afd the Virar hospital fire. You aren't alone in wanting it deleted (1 other person), and since the AFD isn't concluded yet, I can only say what I see, and at a quick glance, it will probably be a keep. You also nominated this for deletion and on my talk page said WP:NOTNEWS, however, you really didn't give a deletion reason as to why WP:NOTNEWS applies to make the event not notable. This was all in the last few days. I more of wanted to hear your opinion of what WP:NOTNEWS means, since you seem to believe a terrorist attack, hospital fire, & a school kidnapping are completely not notable for Wikipedia. (For other editors, please don't comment to me or CommanderWaterford about this. I asked him on his talk page [1] about if he would be willing to talk to me 1 on 1 and he basically said put it in the AFD...so I am...) Elijahandskip (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Fram; should probably also delete Madurai Kidnapping and Makurai kidnapping since they were complete misnomers and couldn't conceivably cause anything except confusion – is that something we can clean up right here, or should someone take them to RfD? AngryHarpy‍^talk 16:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those previous titles should be deleted, because they're wrong names rather than plausible search terms. This article was created when it wasn't known how many victims there were. If this kidnapping is insufficiently notable for an article, it should be merged into Kidnapping in Nigeria. Jim Michael (talk) 16:10, 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. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JHS Pedals[edit]

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

The article seems like an article that contains promotional content, and I don't think it is notable. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for bringing this to my attention, Ahmetlii! I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so I didn't realize how important it was to include secondary sources as well as primary ones. I'll work on this article tomorrow and see if I can add in more secondary/tertiary sources.

As far as promotional content, could you point out what specifically you had an issue with? Again, I'm pretty new to this, so I want to make sure I'm addressing everything I need to. Thanks so much! -KelseyNoelle2021 21:22, 26, April 2021 (CST)

KelseyNoelle2021, you can use four tildes, ~~~~, to sign your posts. As for promotional content, well, there's plenty. The sentence "Scott was interviewed by..." is a minor example: references, if they are reliable, should be used to verify content, not to be listed for their own sake. The thing "which stood out largely" has only a YouTube link (a primary source) and thus adds to the linkfarm. Same with the podcast stuff, which is nothing but a bunch of links. Then there's "the world’s first ever historically accurate musical comedy" (what?), with an inline URL to YouTube. And more YouTube. And a link to Sweetwater, which sells the pedals. And to more company websites. And a list of linked names with references that have nothing to do with the article subject. And a list of linked products with references that have nothing to do with the article subjects--that's just namedropping, and creating backlinks. And then another list of people with sometimes questionable references, and the blatant spam of "A complete list of JHS Pedals..." Shall I go on? Drmies (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for clarifying this for me, Drmies! I really appreciate it. I went in and added more links to secondary sources like interviews and reviews, which hopefully helps. Since JHS Pedals is a business, what sort of sources would you recommend using to avoid any COI or promotional content? Thanks again! KelseyNoelle2021, 28 April 2021 (CST)
  - OK, KelseyNoelle2021, you tried to put signatures in article content, which is not where it goes. And you copied the "nowiki" stuff, which you shouldn't do: type the four tildes. I'm sorry, but I think you should read Wikipedia:About, and maybe download "Editing Wikipedia guide". And what you really need to do is actually READ Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which AllegedlyHuman linked on your talk page, and then follow the guidelines in WP:DISCLOSE, lest you simply be blocked for an undeclared conflict of interest. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--small company, but there's a couple reviews, enough for it to pass. The article needs further pruning, of course. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references include significant coverage from the music press (e.g. Guitar Player and Premier Guitar) so I feel it passes WP:Notability. The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:27, 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 keep, withdrawn. Potential sockpuppetry issues can be addressed separately at WP:SPI. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asjad Raza Khan[edit]

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

sock farm of family members trying to create non notable person with zero in-depth links. Sonofstar (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Seems like unsupported allegations of socks combined with WP:VAGUEWAVE dismissal of all discussed sources from previous AfD may leaves nomination arguably within the scope of WP:SKCRIT criteria 2. On the subject of socks I note the raiser of the previous AfD nomination was subsequently blocked as a suspected sock and remains so blocked at the time of this post. I note no issues with the previous AfD discussion. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in accordance with WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. He is referred to as the "grand mufti"[2] or "grand mufti and chief Islamic justice of India"[3] which is significant.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Djm-leighpark: I am gonna withdraw the nomination, I guess he is notable due to Contraversy & passing WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES but I have no doubt regarding sock farm, where a blocked user User talk:Kaifraza786 accepted he is trying to create a page of his father Kaif Raza Khan and he has edited majority of his family person pages. I come to know about Asjad Raza Khan from the family chart he created. Sonofstar (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The one non-delete opinion does not address the arguments for deletion. Sandstein 06:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Supply Chain Management[edit]

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

Non-notable institute with no multiple reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG or satisfy WP:ORG. nearlyevil 665 20:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 20:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary sources shown. Nexus000 (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is quite a well known + respected organisation, its Wikipage is lacking though. --Devoke water 13:30, 3 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 keep. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious McKesson[edit]

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

Not sure that being the first woman of color to cast an electoral ballot in a particular should be a standard for notability. Without that, which probably falls under the WP:BIO1E standard, there is not enough coverage of this person to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NPOL as a "major local political figure" with "significant press coverage". In addition to her electoral vote (which suggests notability even under BLP1E imo), she was Biden's political director in NE [4], organized conventions [5], received attention as a possible candidate [6] [7], received coverage specifically devoted to her [8], is the black caucus chair of the state party, etc. Urve (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nommed. The ballot-casting is clearly single event, and the coverage thereof doesn't hence meet WP:GNG standards, or for that matter the sigcov requirement of NPOL. And being a staffer or campaigner is obviously not inherently notable, even in connection with presidential elections. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with above that this meets WP:NPOL due to the presence of "significant coverage" by multiple "reliable" and independent "secondary sources". In addition to the sources mentioned above, in 2018 she was profiled by NBC News [9]. Ys2001 (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)User:Ys2001[reply]

Keep - I agree that the article does meet WP:NPOL due to the presence of "significant coverage" by multiple "reliable" and independent "secondary sources", along with others that were not necessarily mentioned in the article. West6799 (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this user was created today, and their first edit was to come here and !vote. Hmmm. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, WP:BASIC, and WP:NPOL, and because this does not appear to be WP:BLP1E. I have revised the article and added sources, and this does not appear to be WP:BLP1E because that only applies when three conditions are met, including that the person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual; the sources in the article show that in 2018, NBC News was covering her development from "local volunteer to a prominent party role as the Nebraska Democratic Party's first ever constituency director," and in 2019, she became a state ambassador for a national advocacy and lobbying organization, neither of which are low-profile activities. She is also the Vice President of the Board of Directors of Neighborhoods USA, and her 3-year term runs through October 2021. In addition, before she was an electoral voter, in September 2020, she had brief coverage in the The New York Times as "a community activist in Omaha and the chairwoman of the state Democratic Party’s Black caucus." WP:BASIC notability appears to be further supported and WP:NPOL notability appears to be supported due to the depth of coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources, including the Omaha World-Herald and the Lincoln Journal Star. There is also less biographical coverage but further commentary in USA Today and local ABC News 1 2 coverage. There are additional sources in the article, but these appear to be sufficient to demonstrate notability, and if not per WP:NPOL, then per WP:BASIC, which states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 04:32, 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 Withdrawn in favor of redirection to Henderson Hall Historic District. See discussion below. Hog Farm _Talk 17:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pohick, West Virginia[edit]

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

I don't think this is a notable location. The non-GNIS source simply describes this as It is near the Ohio R., on the line of the Monongahela West Penn Public Service Company, Williams D., Wood County and suggests that the name may be of Native American origin. Newspapers.com results are all for Pohick Church and some ACW stuff in Virginia. West Virginia Geographic Names calls it a locale, which is a USGS designation reserved for noncommunity sites. Listed as a railroad stop between Williamstown and Kellar in 1899. This suggests that Pohick is an individual house in Hendersons, West Virginia, for which we do not seem to have an article. This suggests a B&O rail feature. While it's not entirely clear what this Pohick was, I don't think it's notable. Hog Farm _Talk 20:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 20:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 20:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A self-published history book (that I wouldn't use) and https://sah-archipedia.org/buildings/WV-01-WD25 both agree that it is the former name of Henderson Hall in the Henderson Hall Historic District, which led to http://www.wvculture.org/shpo/nr/pdf/wood/86000811.pdf which explains it in a reliable source on page 8—4. Flesh out Henderson Hall Historic District and we could just redirect. Uncle G (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And the NRHP form discusses the B&O right of way going through the Henderson Hall district, which explains the rail connection as well. I've got a few NRHP GAs, so this looks like a good expansion project for me. Agree that this can be redirected once the Henderson Hall article gets fleshed out. Hog Farm _Talk 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Uncle G: - I'm not done expanding the Henderson Hall article by a long ways yet, but I've added enough that I think we can safely redirect Pohick to there now. Are you okay with me withdrawing this AFD in order for the redirection? Hog Farm _Talk 15:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - It appears to be just us two here. ☺ I have no objection. Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 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 23:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Crosland[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely isn't a List A cricketer as claimed in the article. Fails CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does pass NCRIC in its current form, but I'm not seeing anything that would constitute significant coverage in a search. His stats in these 5 matches suggest he probably wouldn't have gained coverage offline or in Wisden either. No suitable list to redirect too and perhaps could have been PRODed. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCRIC. scope_creep^Talk 11:33, 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. ✗plicit 23:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Minghetti[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely isn't a List A cricketer as claimed in the article. Fails CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does pass NCRIC in its current form, but I'm not seeing anything at all that would constitute significant coverage. Only made one appearance also so I doubt there will be coverage offline or in Wisden. No suitable list to redirect to either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIC. scope_creep^Talk 11:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Blackadder[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does pass NCRIC in it's current form, but I'm not seeing anything in searches that would constitute significant coverage. Unlikely to have gained coverage offline or in Wisden as only 1 game and no stats. No suitable list to redirect to either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIC. scope_creep^Talk 11:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Rugbyfan22. StickyWicket (talk) 11:42, 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 23:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaif Raza Khan[edit]

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

Repetitive trying to create a page, delete, and Salt. Nonnotable person. Sonofstar (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mosesheron (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable individual. No sign of notability. Mosesheron (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, probably a WP:G5 anyway. AngryHarpy‍^talk 04:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, young cleric that does not have SIGCOV.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing in this article that states a case for general notability. There is also a draft at Draft:Kaif Raza Khan, which may be kept and ignored, or deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 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 23:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biswatosh Sinha[edit]

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

Since the previous AfD was 10 years ago and the situation has likely changed somewhat, I feel that this warrants a second discussion. Three of the four cited sources don't mention Sinha at all and the other one is IMDb. In my search I found a passing mention in The Statesman and then a couple of occasions where his tweet has been reposted, for example Bollywood Life and Business Insider.

10 years from the previous AfD, it still looks like he fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. I must note that it was quite impressive to see such a strong consensus to delete an article in a 2011 AfD as well; notability criteria were a bit more relaxed back then, I recall. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG, only passing by mentions in WP:BEFORE found CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as observed by CommanderWaterford. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:09, 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. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calico Mills (area)[edit]

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

A neighbourhood. Technically unreferenced since years (one reference is about the mill, not the area/neighbourhood). One sentence article. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Nizil (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a neighbourhood. For those trying to look this up, the actual name of the Calico Mills was the Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Company and the well-documented, but unofficial, neighbourhood in the area was Ram Rahim Nagar in the ward of Behrampura. There's a map on page 22 of ISBN 9781108497596. Uncle G (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 19:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nom.Shyamsunder (talk) 08:37, 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 no consensus. Participants are evenly divided, both numerically and from a strength-of-argument perspective, and a fourth relist is unlikely to change that. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yemane Niguse[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Might have been G5 eligible but not totally sure. Noah ^💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question for User:-noah-: What does "G5 eligible" mean, please? BushelCandle (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eligible for G5 speedy deletion.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 22:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not making the exact extent of my ignorance clearer, Kieran207, but I think I understand the "eligible for speedy deletion part" - it's the G5 jargon that has me nonplussed: where can I find exactly this (presumed) G5 rule or whatever? (A link or URL would assist my education...) BushelCandle (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The full policy can be found at WP:G5.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 10:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your speedy response and for those great links, Kieran207. If I have understood those pages correctly, I have deduced that this article is NOT eligible for a G5 deletion because it it has substantial edits by others - specifically 12 others (including myself). --BushelCandle (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NPOL. The only sources which give any coverage about him are about his assassination, which would fall under WP:BIO1E.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage for WP:GNG needs to take into account the demographic bias of en.Wikipedia editors and sources. We have a mainstream Ethiopian media source, Borkena, that reports on Yemane and his leadership of a group opposed to the former dominating party in Ethiopia, the TPLF; this is not only about the assassination itself. We have a major Oromo media source, Kichuu, reporting on Yemane being sufficiently independent that several groups disliked his leadership of part of the Tigrayan opposition. Both mainstream sources state that Yemane was killed for his political activities. The mainstream sources are currently reasonably widely used in en.Wikipedia for Ethiopia-related topics, showing that many editors consider these reliable, even though nobody has created the sources' Wikipedia articles yet; the red linking is reasonably associated with the systematic demographic bias on en.Wikipedia. WP:BIO1E is only about the question of whether the article on a noticeable person/event should be rather on the person or rather on the event; it's not an argument to delete the overall topic. Keep in mind that since early November 2020 the Tigray War with a near-total blockade on most forms of communication has been in place. This is not the UK.Wikipedia or the US.Wikipedia; this is an English language encyclopedia aimed to cover information about the whole world. Boud (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he's so notable, then find the sources! This Isn't about bias, this is about an article that doesn't comply with WP:V, who's subject fails GNG.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 22:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Boud is spot-on in highlighting the demographic bias of en.Wikipedia editors and sources and the existence of coverage in mainstream Ethiopian media sources that have a limited web and English language presence. The suspicion of many in the region is that Yemane Niguse was notable enough to warrant assassination to prevent his influence growing further. BushelCandle (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further focus on sources brought up later during the discussion may help generate a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 15:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search turned up nothing outside of what was in the article already. Likely a non-notable activist that only received attention for dying. And before you talk about my bias, FIND THE SOURCES. If sources for him exist in a language I don't understand, then find them and add them to the article.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 01:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cocnur with Boud; claim that WP:BIO1E applies is incorrect, Niguse's role prior to his assassination is notable, evidenced by reporting of the Fenkil Movement. It's also reasonable in this case to take account of the censorship restrictions in place and the difficulty in finding multiple sourcing to overwhelmingly satisfy the GNG. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 19:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable enough. Doesn't comply with WP:Notability (politics). Ragmuffin-AGASTOPIA (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC) strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of these exceptionally difficult AfDs where it's nearly impossible to make a determination based on English sources and available non-English sources. Failing NPOL doesn't mean you can't otherwise be notable. Going only by the sources in the article, he probably does fail WP:BIO1E, but the sources aren't so bad that a neutral article can't be written about him. If there's anything else written on him, which wouldn't be in English, he's probably notable enough for an article. I don't find myself agreeing with the delete !voters, but can't defend a source-based keep !vote due to the difficulties in finding sources. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 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 23:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha Ramos[edit]

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

Municipal politician fails WP:NPOL. Mayors of Burbank are not elected, but chosen by the city council. KidAd • SPEAK 18:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per argument. JayzBox (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Burbank is a council-manager city where the mayoralty is a ceremonial position selected internally by the city council, and not an executive role directly elected by the voting public, so its mayors do not get an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors — but this article is not reliably sourced well enough to make her special, as it's referenced almost entirely to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES that are not support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 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 00:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Gabel-Luddy[edit]

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

Municipal politician fails WP:NPOL. Mayors of Burbank are not elected, but chosen by the city council. KidAd • SPEAK 18:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per argument. Not even the mayor of the well known city of Santa Barbara, California has a Wikipedia page. Regards. JayzBox (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Burbank is a council-manager city where the mayoralty is a ceremonial position selected internally by the city council, and not an executive role directly elected by the voting public, so its mayors do not get an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors — but this article is not reliably sourced well enough to make her special, as it's referenced almost entirely to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES that are not support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is not enough to justify a free standing article. In Burbank the mayor is only a title, not the actual head of the city government. We have established that non-head of government mayors in cities that are secondary within their metro area are not default notable and we need good sourcing to keep articles on them, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- One place where we established this precedent was the deletion of the article on Richard Notte. Notte was actually an elected mayor since Sterling Heights, Michigan directly elects the mayor, even though it has a council-manager form of government. Notte was also mayor for on the order of 20 years. Sterling Heights also has about 18,000 more inhabitants than Burbank.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 3 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Canolintas[edit]

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

being a conditioning coach for notable teams isn't an automatic WP:NFOOTY pass, especially given he's received no coverage and doesn't otherwise pass GNG or the SNG related to his career. TAXIDICAE💰 17:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG and NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seany91 (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, young non-notable trainer.--Mvqr (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Eternal Shadow Talk 00:01, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Group Sports Management[edit]

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

non-notable sports firm, no meaningful coverage, fails WP:NCORP TAXIDICAE💰 17:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references provided in the article, as well as those found in a search for independent and reliable sources, fail to address the company in enough depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The company therefore does not pass WP:NCORP. Passing mentions and interviews with people associated with the company are insufficient when it comes to meeting the necessary guideline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by managing notable people. No evidence they pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, only few mentions in passing, press-releases and their rewrites... WP:CORPSPAM, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 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 00:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Angel School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the references in the article are either primary or basic school listing sites. Plus, from what I can tell when I did a WP:BEFORE all that exists are a few book references and news articles about another school in the United States that goes by the same name. So, maybe that one is notable, but this one clearly isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too common a name to redirect. May be a for-profit school, and since it fails GNG, it clearly fails NORG. 174.212.228.209 (talk) 21:43, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great Christian Academy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search for sourcing turned up no reliable sources, just a listing of directions to the place, and its own website, and the facebook page we have here. I found there is an elementary with the same name in Illinois, and after that I started getting reviews about other places that said those places were a "great Christian academy". We are no where near having the source level to show that this place is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 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 delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daang Hari Elementary School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - primary schools are only rarely notable, and my searches find no coverage sufficient to meet the GNG. No target for redirection is apparent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable school. Koridas 📣 18:08, 4 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 keep. Tone 15:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onicha Olona[edit]

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

This article is abysmally written. It almost entirely based on a quote from a single book. I could not find any other pertinent sources online, and I suspect this may be an advertisement for the book (WP:IBA). SydneyFisher111 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SydneyFisher111 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, populated and not so small town passed WP:GEOLAND. The article was a serviceable stub until March 2021, and deletion is not cleanup.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Postfix, deletion is not cleanup but this owl has done some cleaning.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's better now, but there are still only a few references, all devoid of meaningful information about the town. I was unable to find reasonable substitutes for them. Notability requires verifiable evidence. SydneyFisher111 (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep Part of the problem is that the coordinates are way off, at least if GMaps are to be believed: they show this to be a considerable town. That said, the article is nearly complete crap. Mangoe (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:GEOLAND, despite the quality of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 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. Tone 15:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Gordon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has basically no hits on Google other than places offering to sell copies of the painting. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Strong painting by Alice Neel who currently is having a major retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. A portrait of a writer and artist who has been a prolific essayist and art critic in recent years...Modernist (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Read this by art critic James Panero: [10]...Modernist (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree - KEEP GRALISTAIR (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number of google hits is not a criterion that can be used to establish notability. In fact, this is explained in the essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. See WP:GHITS. Vexations (talk) 11:34, 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. Tone 15:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinveli[edit]

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

This is a promotional product listing, not a NPOV encyclopedia article DGG ( talk ) 14:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I'm not finding sources for WP:ORGCRITE. The draft could be de-promoed later if more reliable sources show up. Jmill1806 (talk) 02:29, 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. Tone 15:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Limite 5[edit]

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

The article is completely unsourced. Plus Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Further to this, the article seems to have been largely copied from the Portugese page without any form of attribution. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources can be found on the Portugese version of the page. I'm not the biggest expert on adding them but I can try. And regarding the second statement, I've encountered numerous pages about upcoming movies and TV shows, that's why I added it. --Ulisseèbello (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't give the subject inherent notability. See WP:OTHER. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per CSD G4, had been deleted before CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted, it is clearly just a copy of the Portuguese, but nothing in that suggests that it's notable. If I were Brazilian I would vote Delete for that as well.Athel cb (talk) 18:25, 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 13:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Sting[edit]

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

After a search in several places, completely fails WP:GNG, does not appear to have been covered in secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 12:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable minor league team. It's probably about as notable as the basketball team at College of the Canyons. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 03:16, 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 speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paras Gola[edit]

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

Unremarkable biography, a draft exists for this person at Draft:Paras_Gola which has been stale since October. There are no real improvements and the sources are still weak.   Kadzi   (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I would have thought this would have been better speedied as WP:A7. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article is confirmed as created by Zaid Zayd after they were indefinitely blocked it could be speedied as WP:G5 too. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found some promo pieces about him in Influencive (blacklisted by Wikipedia - make of that what you will) and Your Digital Wall but nothing in established and reputable WP:RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only found one or two promotional articles. Fails GNG and also can't find any reliable sources too.Poppified ^talk 17:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real notability, doesn't comply with WP:Notability (people). Secondary sources are not strong enough to show notability.Ragmuffin-AGASTOPIA (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No strong coverage from anything resembling a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep qualify GNG. qualify notability [persons] as per new references added. news coverage seems suitable as blogger and entrepreneur so we can keep this article live on Wikipedia. i will try collect ad add more news valid news sources about this person. — Akashkumar9871 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Md Rokonuzzaman[edit]

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

Fail of WP:PROF. Lackluster citation index. nearlyevil 665 10:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 10:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 10:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are several people in GScholar with a similar name but the relevant one appears to be this one[11]. Citability is low, with h-index of only 8. Nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF. The article is written in a promotional tone. The creator's username, User:Rokon.wiki and the fact that the infobox contains highly personal family details, suggest that we may be dealing with a COI or even possibly WP:AUTO situation here. Nsk92 (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:PROF. Mosesheron (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, TOOSOON for NPROF and lacks significant coverage.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delte Doesn't seem to pass WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:58, 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. Tone 15:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Christopher Columbus (Chula Vista, California)[edit]

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

This statue has no special artistic or historical significance. It doesn't inherit notability from the George Floyd protests. There are a lot more tiny stubs just like this one, along with a few good examples, listed in the template at the bottom. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, of course. There's plenty of sourcing for an entry: we know the author, dedication/installation date, description (dimensions, materials, etc), not to mention coverage about multiple instances of vandalism and details about the statue's removal. Next time try Googling before jumping to AfD? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems like a WP:BEFORE failure. Coverage in California-wide papers include a full Los Angeles Times article and San Diego Union-Tribune commentary, lots of NBC San Diego stuff like this. Lots of smaller mentions like San Francisco Chronicle and a satirical piece in the San Diego Reader. Also the stuff in the article already, including the Smithsonian listing. — Bilorv (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion and sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: looks perfectly valid. Mr Bulmer
Delete A 30-year old generic statue without any historical value, connection to the subject, or drive to be commissioned by a local group of any kind. Going into the Smithsonian source, it was commissioned by a land development company and mortgage provider not because Chula Vista is a hotspot of Columbus-mania, but just to decorate their new development during a time when everyone was commemorating the 500th anniversary of his voyage (often out of obligation/branding opportunities, and not actual interest in history). Hardly historically significant; I know there's coverage, but we don't need to cover every piece of public art, especially one commissioned as mere decoration for a housing development park. Discovery Park (Chula Vista, California) itself could be deleted; outside of the usual 'teens fought here' nonsense, it's a non-notable park. Nate • (chatter) 01:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The park should be kept for the words "middle school fight club" alone. As for the statue, aside from being well-sourced, it was one of Columbus' 500 year memorials, a select group although I don't know how many. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a lot like an I don't like it argument. My problem with this argument is that we are not a paper encyclopedia paper encyclopedias with a limited number of article slots. To the contrary, we have unlimited spaces to fill and lack any guidance on determining the "significance" of articles outside of notability and related content policies (all of which are met for this article). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not meant to be IDLI at all. The statue simply doesn't have local history, or a connection to a local cultural organization or Italian-American advocate group that most Columbus statues do. It was sculpted by real estate interests merely to provide a statue in a housing development to meet malicious compliance which required them to build out some parkland in the middle of a subdivision, and the only people likely to care about it until 2020 were area residents/the middle school fight club as a 'meet me here' guidepoint. There are elementary schools built in the 90s with more N than this generic statue. Nate • (chatter) 01:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I admit I may have misinterpreted your argument. However, it did get coverage in the 1990s and was included in the Smithsonian outdoor statue registry. I think this coverage combined with the substantial 2020 coverage is enough to push it over the notability guidelines. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. Well-sourced, & these are becoming hotter topics these days. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Smithsonian listing cites several regional newspaper articles from 1990 and 1992 and notes that they have been included in the statue's file. I personally wasn't able to find the newspapers through my WIkipedia Library Card or from my actual library's website, but I presume that there are means for the public to view the contents of the Smithsonian file. All in all, I think sourcing is good and that notability is met. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple reasons for notability. Collective notability is a strong reason to keep this article. In particular is the statue's connection to events transpiring with other acts of civil disobedience of Christopher Columbus memorials around the U.S. Myotus (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per others. I will add I'm partially Native Amerindian. I might not agree with what Columbus might've done or what he represents, but the article is still notable and verifiable. By the logic of removing this article, would be exact the same thing as suggesting we should rename Washington, DC., or renaming the country of Colombia. Best. JayzBox (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per links provided by Bilorv. Contrary to the nom, I'll say that this item did inherit notability from the George Floyd protests - the protests led to the statue's removal and its subsequent media coverage in various RSs which granted it notability per WP:GNG. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 15:20, 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 speedy delete. This was the same article as last time this went through AFD, reposted. Uncle G (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Hijab[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person, doesn't pass WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 09:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 09:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per CSD G4 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Hijab (2nd nomination)) CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps a salt is in order too? nearlyevil 665 10:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Pipsally (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability guideline and no WP:RS. TheChronium (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have submitted a case at SPI; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hassanjunoir999. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per CommanderWaterford. Mosesheron (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:G4 but also likely WP:G5 pending CU Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 and G5 (I just requested admin action in the SPI) – the recreation is word-for-word identical. --Blablubbs|talk 10:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Duke of Dato. Redirecting the other two as well. Tone 15:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Dato, 2nd Duchess of Dato[edit]

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

This article is merely a genealogical entry, yet Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Being related to a prime minister is not grounds nor inclusion, and neither is having held a noble title. The subject is obscure; she does not appear in reliable sources other than genealogy books, and that does not constitute significant coverage. Surtsicna (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also delete her mother, María de Barrenechea, 1st Duchess of Dato, and sister, María del Carmen Dato, 3rd Duchess of Dato. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those articles should be deleted as well. They too are merely genealogical entries. Surtsicna (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to delete this one and her sister! However, I opposed to delete her mother because she was Spouse of the PM also. Look notable to me! VocalIndia (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Was she a female duke or not? According to the article, she was inherited the dukedom Duke of Dato, is it not a legitimate noble position ? I see that dukedom is not deposed one at that time. Just search with her alternative name “ Doña Isabel Dato y Barrenechea” have a bit more info. Perhaps someone with an interest in Spanish history can help. VocalIndia (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. But this dukedom was created in 1921. Are there any estates, revenues, castles, etc. attached, or is this just an empty title? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The title was created less than two weeks after, and in response to, the assassination of the prime minister. That didn't leave much time to attach anything substantial to it. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aww I see! Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she (and her mother and sister) were duchesses in their own right. However, there don't seem to be any refs to them outside of things like Hidalguia and Burke's. Clearly there should be a page for the duchy, so perhaps they can be merged to Duke of Dato. Furius (talk) 14:42, 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. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chérif Arbouz[edit]

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

Had been DEPRODED, one ref (a mention in a book publishing magazine) was added to provide GNG (which he seem to fail), fails notability per WP:NAUTHOR, no significant, in-depth coverage of the author himself found-able. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG although he IS a thing and IS an Algerian author. There just isn't sufficient RS coverage to substantiate him. I'd love someone to come up with sources, and would change my vote in a second if they do, but I couldn't. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - current sourcing includes a couple of listings, a blog, and an obit blurb. Searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added Amazon links to the books, but looks like self published? Does not appear to be notable though, no other reviews or sources found.AlejandroX839 (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Berber grammar alone is highly notable. A sci-fi series based in north Africa is also notable. I meant to search French-language sources, and it slipped my mind. I'll come back to that. However, it is so important to realize the context: a marginalized community would have received little coverage of its literature, even in the colonial press. Today still, most African indigenous press is online, so it's a bit specious to dismiss these sources as "blogs". Simply because he is little-known does not mean he is not notable, and in several genres to boot. Elinruby (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Append comment - GNG is the wrong standard. He is an academic, linguist, and science fiction author. Of course he wouldn't have much coverage in English-langage sources. Elinruby (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into notability myself yet, but must point out that WP:GNG does not depend on English-language sources. Sources in French, Berber or Arabic are totally acceptable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help with Berber or Arabic. Fast pass on French Google didn't help. I will try a deeper dive into the Bibliothèque National, which may not be fully indexed. I still say that one of the only sources I have ever seen about this isolated community is notable in and of itself, and GNG is the wrong standard. For context, Kabylie is somewhat analogous to Hopiland. Also for context, although I am not Algerian nor have I ever been there, my wikignoming has led me to edit a LOT of machine translation on Algeria and the history of Algeria. Actually, I have just thought of someone who may be able to help; I will look up the name and ping her. Is there an Algerian portal or something where this can be listed? I think that an Arabic speaker would be very useful. I don't think people here realize the context. Elinruby (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RubyALG: can you help here, or perhaps refer us to somebody who knows Kabylie? These editors are correct that he doesn't meet the general notability standard. I think he should be evaluated as an academic, but if we can get some better sourcing in Arabic, perhaps, we won't have to have that discussion. Thanks for any brainpower you apply to this, and please let me know if anything I said above is incorrect. Elinruby (talk) 09:21, 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 redirect to Ass (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy (Badfinger song)[edit]

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

Uncited article fails WP:NSONG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any sources on the song and per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ass (album) - fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG, there is no discussion on the song outside album reviews. The fact that the song has not been released independently, nor has charted on national charts, or received certifications, or accolades indicates that a standalone article is not appropriate. --Ashley yoursmile! 14:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ass (album) - The article does nothing more than announce the song's existence, which can be done at the album article. The song has no independent notability as a single or as the topic of any reliable media coverage in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:45, 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. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 07:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Kenkey[edit]

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

Non-notable food with no references to attest for notability, apart from youtube links and recipe websites nearlyevil 665 20:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nearlyevil665:I've added some references to the article. I took keen interest after seeing the notice bacause this desert is very popular here in Ghana and finding citations should have been easier. Perhaps, the one who started the page is still new to "article creation". Well, I've added references including news related sources. Ibdawud (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you. Instead of withdrawing, I will let a more experienced user determine if said sources are enough to warrant for notability. nearlyevil665 15:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Sure! Ibdawud (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep, the article has been improved. Aside from that, the dessert is a notable one in Ghana and needs to be further improved. Ampimd (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there actually significant coverage in reliable sources for the topic to pass WP:GNG? Right now, the article itself fails WP:NOTHOWTO as essentially a recipe with overcite from some non-RSes and passing mentions. This article probably counts as significant coverage in a secondary reliable source, but are there others? — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has been improved and sources now have been added to support the article. So, I vote keep per WP:HEY. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there isn't much more to add to this article, then perhaps it could be merged to Kenkey. (I'm not voting merge as I don't know enough to say that's the right option.) If it isn't merged or deleted, then I think there should be a mention of this variant in, and a link from, the Kenkey article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I've cleaned up some of the WP:NOTHOWTO recipe issues. The subject probably barely passes WP:GNG based on this academic journal article and this local news article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:09, 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 Escape the Fate. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Situations (EP)[edit]

Previous AfDs for this article:

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

No sources available in this uncited article, no sources of any significance online to be found. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:NSONG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Escape the Fate, which it was before an editor keeps insisting on recreating the poorly sourced article. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per user above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:37, 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MadHouse (duo)[edit]

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

Unbelievable article written with trivia and useless information unsuitable for encyclopedia. On top of that its highly promotional. The band while definitely exists, comes no where close to WP:BAND. The references in the article are mere reference to the news media/radio station homepages and unreliable sources like youtube channel of the band. WP:BEFORE confirmed that there is absolutely nothing remarkable done by this duo. . Chirota (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you argue this should be Speedy Deleted under G11? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foxnpichu, not at all. But since the article is a bit old and went through the works of a group of editors, I thought AfD to be the rigt place. Chirota (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs some work, that's for sure. But its current version cites quite a few notable and reliable Brazilian sources, so it passes WP:BAND. There are past versions of it adopting more appropriate tones, so CSD no longer applies. An article should only be deleted if it is beyond saving; doesn't seem to be the case here. An {{Advert}} tag would suffice, for now, until someone works on that promotional tone, which was added a couple of years ago by a probable COI account. They may have seriously compromised the text's tone, but the article itself is not to pay the price for that. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 23:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Lopes, we can surely keep an article if it is notable. Of course we are not discussing to victimize the article for its content and tone, rather we are assessing the subject's merit. WP:BAND#1 suggests just as WP:GNG suggests in someway, that the the mentions should be non-trivial, independent and reliable. Can you please elaborate which references you think to be satisfying all three of these? Also, if you hover to the history, the page was previously tagged with a COI template which was removed by another SPA. My analysis says, the reference "https://www.diariodeibiza.es" is unreliable, local media and not a reputed one. Same is true for ibiza global radio, www.musicjournal.com.br, caras.uol.com.br which are hardly independent and reliable and tabloid-like. There are some other low quality blog references and useless Spotify links. Lastly, if you see the discography of the band, it only released three singles and some remixes which definitely make them not noteworthy.Chirota (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it needs work. But it's not WP:TNT yet. It has sufficient reputable sources: Omelete, Rolling Stone Brasil, UOL, Programa do Jô (recently discontinued but comparable to Late Night with _____ in terms of national relevance) and a Google search returned me a couple more. I admit only a couple are providing in-depth coverage, but if several other sources published stories on them (even if just reverberating new singles and stuff), maybe they're noteworthy enough for the ones we use to measure noteworthiness. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 17:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Victor Lopes, it needs some work, that's for sure. But its current version cites quite a few notable and reliable Brazilian sources, so it passes WP:BAND. Wrenaudra (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The two "keep" voters above used the exact same phrase "quite a few notable and reliable Brazilian sources" but did not provide one single example, and are possibly mixing up the terms reliable and significant per WP:SIGCOV. Via Google Translate I inspected the article's current sources that are not mere social media promotions or streaming entries. Footnotes #5, 19, 20, and 25 (as of the time of this comment) appear to be viable music media publications in Brazil, but they only provide either softball promotional interviews or brief announcements of some new single or video release. Via various searches of the band members and song titles I can find nothing more substantial. This WP article reflects the group's media blitz strategy, and good luck with that but Wikipedia has a different philosophy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I know what I'm saying. Brazilian music and press have been some of my major areas of interest here for the past 15 years. I totally get your concern with promotional sources, but precisely because of my experience, I can say that unfortunately it's getting harder and harder to run away from these even for much more noteworthy subjects. IMHO, the solution for this article is basically returning to the pre-COI version without rejecting the good sources that we currently have. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 17:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:BAND they meet criterion #4 as they have played in at least one sovereign country and have gotten coverage. They have played in Ibiza (Spain) and France according to the article and citaions. This article here is in-depth and talks about their Ibiza playing. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Lesliechin1, criterion #4 says "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour". Firstly their performance wasn't any international concert tour or national concert tour. Secondly the reference is neither RS nor seem to be independent.Chirota (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting a bit too technical whether a Gig in Ibiza is a tour or not. I would argue it is a very close variation for meeting notability. However, they also for sure meet Criterion #10 and possibly #11 and #12 too. Check this part "In 2018 the singers were invited to sing in Domingão do Faustão, the most popular TV show in Brazil" Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chirota on the "tour" -- being invited to play a one-off gig, possibly because they had connections with the organizer, is not a tour and could happen to any musician. Otherwise I will allow the discussion to play out on the supposedly reliable sources; but note WP:SIGCOV which states that the subject must be covered in reliable sources, AND that coverage must be significant and beyond brief mentions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it should not be confused with Madhouse (band), the work details of MadHouse (duo) is insignificant and the achievements are not meeting the standards of notability per WP:BAND. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jemima Abey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The 2012 AfD closed as no consensus due to her having a major role in Hex and appearing in 5 episodes of As If, but As If has 76 episodes. There is also no significant coverage per WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ENT Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions., it seems she had a role (recurring but not a major role) in one notable television show while all her other roles were minor. --hroest 17:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Newegg. ✗plicit 07:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABS Computer Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, no evidence of notability, virtually no content. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Newegg per previous AfD decision: I don't see enough in the announcement press-release or available product reviews to justify a distinct article on this relaunched brand. Possibly, some mention of it should be added to the Newegg history. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Newegg per previous AfD decision. Articuno appears (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Newegg per previous AfD decision. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. (I did a search of the company on Google Scholar). JayzBox (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep, I did some research before I started the edit, most of the products got lot of reviews on Newegg , 80 reviews for a new released RTX 3090, even more then NZXT, CyberPowerPC. Ryandhnew (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "80 reviews" you linked to is just a count of how many people voted in a 5-star ranking poll for a particular product. This is not proper coverage (neither for the subject of this article, the company, nor for the product). Also, if you are looking to buy something, Wikipedia is not a place for buyer's guides or lists. There are better sites for that (gaming magazines, price trackers, benchmark sites, etc.) Anton.bersh (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ryandhnew, user reviews are not reliable published coverage. This is all the more so when they are published on the product vendor's own site. AllyD (talk) 10:35, 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 keep. Closing as keep as nobody is now arguing for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VIW[edit]

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

Senseless disambiguation page. The Vulcan article doesn't even mention the VIW acronym, the VIW law enforcement acronym is a single mention in a list of jargon and the radio station is a mention of a 1914 station in the history of broadcasting in Australia. A page with no useful content or purpose. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am very confused by the nomination statement. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got my redirects and disambiguations mixed up there. This is a useless disambiguation page - it disambiguates three phrases that do not relate to articles or phrases in common usage. Does that help, t? BestAlexandermcnabb (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this nomination, just realised better as speedy G14. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:49, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gauche Socialiste[edit]

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

Non-notable political faction, fails WP:GNG. The only reliable source coverage I was able to find was this editorial in La Presse (FR), which itself cites Wikipedia as its source. The faction's own website has been dormant since 2016. Chajusong (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any other reliable, secondary sources. I suspect the best option is to delete and have this page redirect to Socialist Left (France), although the English version of that page also has a dearth of sources. The French version seems to be more referenced, but someone with better French skills and knowledge of RS in France might correct me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article in question here is about the Gauche Socialiste faction in Québec Solidaire, a Québec-based provincial party. Both the articles linked to in your comment are about the Gauche Socialiste faction in the *French* Socialist Party (which is absolutely notable), so redirecting there wouldn't be appropriate. Chajusong (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Chajusong, maybe I wasn't clear! I am supporting your proposal to delete the page, because I agree that the Québecois party is not notable. Once that is deleted, I believe the best think to do with the empty page is to turn it into a redirect to the French party. Does that make sense? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Firefangledfeathers, Oh, yes, I definitely misunderstood you! There are currently pages that link to the existing Gauche socialiste page, and I was thinking that you were saying "this page should be deleted, and those links should be redirected to the French party's Gauche socialiste faction" - I was disagreeing with that. I think I now understand that you're saying "once this page is deleted, the term 'Gauche socialiste' should be understood to mean the notable French party faction, and the term should point there", and I do agree with that! Chajusong (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's exactly what I meant! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Status of the website is irrelevant. Discussed in Alexander's International Trotskyism, *the* authoritative text on the history of the Trotskyist movement.^[1] Discussed as one of the four main factions of Quebec solidaire^[2] Mentioned in 1986 Yearbook of International Communist Affairs^[3] Appears in Maitan's history of the IV International.^[4]

References

^ Alexander, Robert Jackson. International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement. Duke University Press. pp. 156, 157, 760. ISBN 978-0-8223-1066-2.
^ Robichaud, Daniel; Cooren, Francois. Organization and Organizing: Materiality, Agency and Discourse. Routledge. p. 180. ISBN 978-1-136-20733-4.
^ Yearbook on International Communist Affairs. Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-8179-8321-5.
^ Maitan, Livio. Per una storia della IV Internazionale: la testimonianza di un comunista controcorrente (in Italian). Alegre. p. 468. ISBN 978-88-89772-08-9.

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly moves me closer to the fence. I can only access those sources as the Google Books links you sent, but what I can see suggest that Alexander is definitely reliable, secondary, and covers GS significantly. Regardless of reliability/secondariness, the other three don't seem to cover GS significantly at all, and the Yearbook might just be talking about a magazine with the same name. Do you think there's evidence that this subject is significantly covered by multiple RS? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 08:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:56, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MyOutDesk[edit]

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

This is essentially a product advertisement that fails NCORP. There is some coverage, but the vast majority of it looks like paid junk. --- Possibly (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cut the promotional stuff and there might be a salvageable article there, though some of the sources are also weak (one is a blog). Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. I've expanded the refs so that it is easier for us to see what we're dealing with. Five out of the 14 references are interviews with the founders. One is a self-published book by one of the founders. The RingCentral pieces are by a business partner so these are not independent.

Most of the other pieces are short reviews, mere mentions or likely paid-for journalism.

Notability would have to hinge on the piece in the Sacramento Business Journal, which is unfortunately behind a paywall, and the three paragraphs in the TechRadar review - which would pass the independence test but I would not consider to be 'substantial' coverage.

While not a reason for deletion in itself, the article comes across as promotional, with several paragraphs that should be deleted if the article was to remain. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To see the Sacramento Business Journal article, you can check the source code. Here is a copy of it for those of you who can't see it because of the paywall: (Redacted) Lopnursands (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)— Lopnursands (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Yes, it's promotional in tone but it also fails WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the point Safe Charmer made. Regards. JayzBox (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Sacramento Business Journal is a credible publication and has an in-depth article. Along with all other news, it meets WP:GNG. Salvageable article, and I can work with editors to improve the way it's written, but overall MyOutDesk is notable VA software. Lopnursands (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)— Lopnursands (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Sacramento Business Journal story is in the SBJ section "Commercial Real Estate ". It's about them buying a building, and says little about the company itself. --- Possibly (talk) 00:56, 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 07:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Wolfinger[edit]

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

His claim to notability is as a former State's Attorney in Florida, but his political office doesn't rise to the level of notability expected in WP:POLITICIAN and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Most media coverage is focused on his involvement in high-profile crimes (George Zimmerman, Mark Dean Schwab, etc.) but notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED), especially from events per WP:BIO1E. Edge3 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interesting that he "expressed surprise at the national spotlight" but that certainly wasn't a media spotlight, 'cos there's no coverage! There's quite a lot over the shooting of Trayvon Martin, but that's incidental stuff for Wolfinger.Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and reads like a promo piece. Agree with assessment expressed that WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Kierzek (talk) 20:12, 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 07:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delimiterless input[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Clearly not a widespread term and fails WP:GNG since there is no available sourcing. A previous discussion was closed "no consensus", although in my opinion seemed to be leaning towards delete. Rusf10 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I for one wasn't leaning. This is drivel, and will never be verified. And we've now been telling it to the world for more than fifteen years. It isn't some mystery terminology, and the argument is not, despite the previous closure, that we don't know it. It is that it just plain isn't true at all. I even gave sources in the prior discussion for what, rather, is true. My challenge from ten years ago, unanswered in all this time, stands. Show doco supporting this. You will not find any. Uncle G (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced OR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if there is no source, there should be no article. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly clear what's being described here, which is similar to the content we have at Computer_terminal#Character-oriented_terminal. The main issue then is the title which may well be some dated jargon. The puzzling thing is that the original author of the page seems to be still active but has not commented here or at the previous discussion. As they have considerable seniority, predating even Uncle G, it would be good to get their input.

Note also that another old-timer who commented in the previous discussion – Andy Dingley – has been mostly inactive for a year, having been blocked for no good reason. Tsk.

Andrew🐉(talk) 14:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, Wow. Did you forget a keep vote? If even you can't find an argument for keeping, it's a pretty clear endorsement this topic need to go... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, per WP:NAD, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V, likely fails GNG given one hit per GBooks/GScholar, assuming it is not OR or a HOAX. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all I know there is a significant concept there, but the title of the article appears to be a neologism and that cannot be tolerated. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:55, 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 no consensus though given the past keep consensus some deference to that should be given. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publius (publishing system)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of the article is and never was notable. The provided sources are either WP:OR or very weak retelling of them. Note: earlier AfD discussion is under a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publius Publishing System. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OR is prohibited for Wikipedia editors, not for sources they use. Isn´t the intended meaning these sources aren´t independent enough on the article subject? Pavlor (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the provided sources don't seem sufficient for validation of the claims. The majority of article is just a summary of ideas presented by Publius creators in their research papers. Only the "Reception" section really has any third-party sources. I could access only "Divided Data Can Elude the Censor" article which basically consists of "[creator] said that [claim]". The other two articles seem to be gone from the face of the internet entirely. Is there a way to recover the linked coverage? Anton.bersh (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to find these two articles. Some sources are mentioned in the previous AfD (directly or indirectly): [12] (AP), [13] (ZDNet), [14] (The Industry Standard). However, these extensively quote author of the article subject. There are also other language sources: [15], [16] (both heise.de). Pavlor (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good job finding those sources, I'll try to incorporate technical info into the article in a bit (e.g, 100 kilobytes file limit). However, these sources strike me as full of speculation and future promisses which were obvoiusly never met. E.g., AP writes "after a two-month trial, a more refined version of the software will likely be released, Rubin said." Frankly, it looks like reporting on temporary popularity of a site which received a mild influx of first-time visitors because of earlier almost-promotional reporting. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with sources above. It's still pretty poor, but at least better than was before. Anton.bersh (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did my best to incorporate sources provided above, but there simply isn't much content about this system. (I'm the nominator and I still vote to delete unless someone steps up and improves the article further). Anton.bersh (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The experiment terminated sometime in 2001 with no significant results." says it all, really. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Anton.bersh did you review the first AFD?? It was a clear Keep because I posted a extensive Reliable Source coverage clearly establishing Notability. I will largely copy paste from the last AFD: Highly Notable project in the development history of internet technology. Historic developments regarding distributed systems, cryptography, anonymity, tamper-proof content, free-speech, and related legal implications.
- New York Times Divided Data Can Elude the Censor[17]
- Scientific American Speech without accountability[18]
- Scientific American How Publius Thwarts Censors[19]
- Association for Computing Machinery Technical Report Fault-Tolerant Distributed Information Retrieval for Publius Servers and Mobile Peers[20]
- Annual Internet Law Institute, Volume 1[21]
- CiteSeerx reports that the academic paper Publius: A robust, tamper-evident, censorship-resistant, web publishing system[22] has been cited by 232 other academic papers.
- Google Book search for Publius distributed internet peer[23] returns many book hits, including:
  - Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies
  - Irresistible Force: The Business Legacy of Napster and the Growth of the Underground Internet
  - Peer-to-Peer Systems: First International Workshop, IPTPS 2002, Cambridge, MA, USA, March 7-8, 2002, Revised Papers
  - Cyberspace & International Law on Jurisdiction: Possibilities of Dividing Cyberspace Into Jurisdictions with Help of Filters and Firewall Software
  - Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies: International Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability, Berkeley, CA, USA, July 25-26, 2000. Proceedings
- The Publius home page[24] has (mostly dead) links to articles which count for Notability, and can be retrieved either in paper form or probably on Internet Archive sites:
  - The Industry Standard(9/13/2000)
  - The Industry Standard (8/21/2000)
  - eWeek
  - Yahoo News
  - Washington Post
  - CNET News 8/7/2000
  - CNET News 6/30/2000
  - Associated Press.
- Credit to Pavlor for finding two articles in German Tech-news Heise.[25], [26]

Also ping to Alexandermcnabb to reconsider, given the extensive and significant coverage in Reliable Sources. Alsee (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting this. I created this AfD because the first one closed with this:

The result was keep. Seems like Alsee's sources have gone uncontested, although Unscintillating's issues will need resolution.

I actually looked into the sources before creating this AfD and all these sources appeared to be almost verbatim reprinting of authors' narration. I wanted to hear other people's oppinion on this coverage. Frankly, the most notable aspect of this system is its creator, AT&T. Many of the popular media (news articles and semi-scientific publications intended for wide audience) repeat the same example of a Church silencing someone (an example cited in the original paper). Some articles claim false things like Publius being able to "verifiably delete" published data. Many of 232 papers citating Publius are actually either just mentioning it in a single sentence or not mentioning it at all (just refer to "peer-to-peer" and "content-addressible" systems). Please note that many papers which cite Publius are about quantitative analysis of peer-to-peer traffic on the internet around 2000-2005 and it's curious that they mention Publius (a network which had only a short trial and terminated in 2001) and omit BitTorrent (which launched at about the same time but without broad news coverage). I don't want to cross into WP:TRUTH, but from a technical perspective Publius was poorly designed (length of each key was roughly equal to length of the encrypted data, no discovery mechanism, etc.) At the time there already existed more advanced systems, but they didn't get much coverage because they didn't make any major proclamations. Anton.bersh (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was agreed to be kept during the previous AfD. Article is still good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will Hatton[edit]

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

Travel blogger not meeting WP:BIO likely written by a WP:COI editor. AntiVan (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the editor that originally created this article as well as made a request to add additional information to it. I'd like to share why I think this article should not be deleted.

When I first created the article, it was quite basic and lacked a lot of information. This was due to my own ignorance as a rookie Wikipedia editor. I should have created it in the Sandbox and it reviewed first, rather than let it remain published incomplete. For this reason, I put in a request to have the article updated with some extra content, in doing so hopefully addressing some of the initial concerns raised. This request was denied though.

I believe that the article with the additional content I submitted is much better and worthy of remaining. I say this because I based the format quite a bit on other biographies in this space (travel blogging), like those for Matthew Kepnes, Laurence Noah, Johnny Ward, and Drew Binsky. These articles use sources that are no more credible than the ones in Mr. Hatton's article and, in some cases, are even more dubious. Johnny Ward's page is riddled with questionable citations for example.

I don't want to turn this into a situation where I say "they have one so I want one too." This would be childish. But I do want to say that I believe the article has at least met the standards set by the other biographies in this space. I'd also like to go on the record by saying that I did everything I could to write the article with the utmost neutrality and only made substantiated claims.

What are everyone else's thoughts on the issue?

Roamingralph (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roamingralph:, It would help if you could provide some examples of wp:reliable sources providing sustained coverage on this subject, and/or a large and non-trivial body of work about the subject by reliable third parties. Comments about the quality (or lack thereof) of other articles in relation to this article is generally considered an argument to avoid. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blogger doesn't cut the WP:GNG mustard. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article's topic falls below notability guideline. Kaspadoo (talk) 11:28, 3 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 07:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wanhala, California[edit]

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

GNIS entry is sourced to a Division of Forestry map, this name does not appear on topos. Earliest topo shows "Camp No. 7" slightly to the north of the coordinates, while later ones just show two unnamed buildings in the woods. I have a strong feeling that this "unincorporated community" is this ranch. Coverage is primarily last names. Doesn't seem to meet GEOLAND or GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 02:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 02:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 02:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I did quite a bit of research and couldn't find any sources on this place, which makes sense it's just a Ranch. This is a bit off topic, but I did search on Yelp of places to eat in 'Wanhala, CA' and it just lists restaurants in Willits (they look delicious though). Best. JayzBox (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Suonii180 (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a small ranch, abandoned by the mid-20th century, is ever seen at this location. Fails GEOLAND.--🌀Locomotive207-talk 🌀 (Formerly Kieran207) 17:26, 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 no consensus. ✗plicit 10:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umid Irgashev[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Kemalcan (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, A simple Google search makes it clear that the subject doesn't pass GNG. Iflaq ^(talk) 20:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sources. The films starring the actor are not bad, and although they are not world-class, they are among the most well-known films in Uzbekistan. As the author of this article, I recommend not deleting the article. Asadbek Botirqulov (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems to have appeared in several notable films. Would pass WP:ACTOR. Needs more references, however. ExRat (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to have appeared in several notable films. May pass WP:NACTOR. Purosinaloense T/K 12:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Asadbek Botirqulov (talk) 14:09, 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 07:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Dixon[edit]

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

Seems unnotable. Just a mere contestant of a 2020 show. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wasn't even a winner. Fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, wasn't even a winner. Fails WP:GNG. Purosinaloense T/K 12:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails to meet WP:GNG and it is a kind of WP:BLP1E. The subject has featured in only one television contest and wasn't even a winner. Abishe (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from joining The Voice Teens, an indication of WP:BLP1E. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 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 keep. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel López (artist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Very recently discussed at AfD and deleted. Speedy for this new version was declined, despite the fact that the new version is still a notability fail. More discussion on the article talk page. --- Possibly (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users who participated in the last AfD: @Bbarmadillo, Vexations, AuthorAuthor, Onel5969, 4meter4, Netherzone, and Ian (Wiki Ed):, --- Possibly (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, You forget some editors from the last AfD. Netherzone (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed @Randy Kryn: and @CurryTime7-24: but think I now have pinged everyone who participated. Please add a ping if I missed anyone. --- Possibly (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:SIGCOV. As stated in the previous AFD, the Los Angeles Times article is the only quality reference on the subject, and therefore there simply is not enough RS to meet WP:GNG. I suggest Extended confirmed protection to prevent article recreation for the closing admin, otherwise this will keep popping up at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article should be retained in the encyclopedia, as the artist clearly meets WP:BASIC. The previous version of this article that was deleted was better than this one, and if I can find/make the time to improve this version I will incorporate that material, however I’m travelling for a critical personal matter and don’t know that I can get to it before this closes. This Chicano artist is in the early stages of their career, yet they have received enough significant coverage (not just mentions) from the likes of the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Music Center, Downtown Los Angeles News, The Eastsider, Boyle Heights Beat and more. Their work has been included in two museum shows. He meets WP:BASIC. As an aside, I want to say that I find it gut-wrenching when student editors’ good-faith efforts are deleted before they have enough time to develop an article (this one was first deleted 35 minutes after it was created). The school semester is not even over yet, their article has been nominated for deletion twice, and I sincerely doubt the student editor knew they were doing anything "wrong", esp. since they were assigned this artist. Netherzone (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: what you are saying about the sources significant coverage (not just mentions) from the likes of the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Music Center, Downtown Los Angeles News, The Eastsider, Boyle Heights Beat and more. is mostly untrue, and I am confused as to why you would keep repeating it. We went over this last time:

Los Angeles Times: an excellent source.
Music center: a commission, contains zero independent reporting.
Downtown Los Angeles News: 1 sentence.
The Eastsider: 2 sentences
Boyle Heights Beat: not included in this article as far as I can see.

So we are in the same situation as a last time: one good source and some trivial mentions.--- Possibly (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, I am not in a position at this time to get into this back-and-forth with you again. I stand by my !vote of Keep. Netherzone (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. I also think it is wrong to characterize this as bad for students. Failure to hit the mark in any field of study is an important part of learning; we should not loosen our standards for universities that use Wikipedia as part of their instruction.--- Possibly (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a note to show the differences between the mainspace article and the draft, which may explain why the speedy deletion request was declined: compare Manuel_López_(artist) to Draft:Manuel_López_(artist) Differences in sourcing are [[27]], [[28]], [[29]],[[30]], [[31]] Vexations (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Netherzone. Hear, hear, well said. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Netherzone. and all above. Purosinaloense T/K 12:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify recreating a recently deleted article instead of publishing a draft and submitting it through the WP:AFC looks like a bad idea. Is it a WP:COI contribution? --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Bbarmadillo, I was not going to post again here, however, this has gone too far. How on earth did you come to the "conclusion" that a student editor who was assigned this artist for a class assignment (this info is easy to find) is now being accused of a Conflict of Interest on her talk page and here? Her article has already been nominated for deletion twice (the first time 35 minutes after it was created; the second time in less than a day). I have no connection to this student editor, her university nor the artist, but it sure seems like bullying at worst and intimidation at best is going on. Good grief you guys, let the student at least get a grade on her efforts! I googled the university calendar and there is only a week until the semester is over. Jeez, talk about turning off potential new editors! Couldn't you simply wait a week? I honestly do not care about this artist's article, but the behavior towards this student editor is appalling. Netherzone (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Netherzone sorry, didn't realise it was a student editor. COI tag removed, comment posted at the user's Talk page. I still think, however, that the article should be draftified. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone there are no special rules for student editors. I very much doubt that having the article in article space has anything to do with their grade, and if it does that is a problem for the teacher who requires it, not us. I don't think there is any COI here. However suggesting that a group of editors gets a break from long-established notability rules is fundamentally wrong. I appreciate your compassionate approach, but compassion has nothing to do with the notability policy for determining which articles are kept. --- Possibly (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Netherzone. JayzBox (talk) 07:19, 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 07:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of SVD missions[edit]

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

Poorly referenced list of countries that the Society of the Divine Word has missions in. I don't see why this list would be needed - there are already maps on the main article with more information than this list, which until recently consisted of a description copied from the organization's website. MSG17 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. MSG17 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MSG17 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As said already the map on the main article serves whatever purpose this list might be aiming for, and ultimately it just ends up being a confusing and disorganized list of countries. Deku link (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a list of countries. No notability as a list. Ajf773 (talk) 08:58, 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 merge to Washington Park Arboretum. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 04:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arboretum Creek[edit]

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

Little to no notability. What could be found was articles only related to maintenance or public works on the creek itself... but all of that information would just serve better on the already existing page for Washington Park Arboretum. A merge is not appropriate because none of the information on the page is usual, as it's all original research performed by an editor 2 years ago without citations, and little of it is particularly reinforced by the few sources an acquaintance helped me find. Deku link (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Deku link (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it should necessarily stand alone, but there's been a masters thesis specifically on the creek, and lots of mentions in the press. I think WP:GEOFEAT is probably satisfied, it just needs to be sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 12:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per below. SportingFlyer T·C 15:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm thinking merge to Washington Park Arboretum. The article on the latter is not that long. Mangoe (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. No need for a standalone article, and what we have here would make a reasonable section there, where it's only mentioned twice with no detail or context. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Washington Park Arboretum there is no reason to have a sepeate article on this little stream when it is all in the arboretum and we have no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 3 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Bruderly[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant, in-depth coverage. Unsuccessful political candidate. Neutrality^talk 00:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Present achievements does not pass WP:NPOL. Articuno appears (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never achieved office, fails WP:NPOL Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - losing numerous uncompetitive Congressional races is inadequate under WP:NPOL, and I'm not finding any sufficiently substantial coverage to meet the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they lost — but this neither states nor reliably sources any indication whatsoever that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 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 07:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jehanzeb Aziz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject's claim to notability is as a humorist and writer of short stories. The good news is that I have fixed the broken link that previously said "Document Not Found" to be replaced with an archived link. The bad news is that link mentions (briefly) only the subject's other career as a media advisor to a government authority and says nothing about his experience in writing humor and fiction. The only other source besides that is the subject's own blog. With no independent sources that bear on the subject's claim to notability having been provided, I can't say that he passes the general notability guideline yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched in Punjabi and got nothing. Mccapra (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG not notable. Articuno appears (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:51, 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. Consensus herein is for the article to be deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Oyedepo[edit]

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

not notable, or at least not independently notable . The references are not in my opinion very reliable, but in any case they mostly cover her as David Oyedepo 's wife, not independently DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The references are ver reliable sources in the local Nigerian context.Timmylegend (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in the article seem to be essentially PR generated by the couple and their church. The articles report what the husband said about the wife on social media as well as what she said about herself. Pretty desperate stuff. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. W C M_email 08:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of a number of similar articles moved by an inexperienced user direct from draft to article space without submitting for review. Deb (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - excepting this, I think coverage in all other sources do not qualify as significant to indicate that a standalone article is appropriate. --Ashley yoursmile! 15:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep or merge to her husband, who is the founding pastor (bishop) of a church of 50,000 people, i.e. a megachurch. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 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.

[1] Alexander, Robert Jackson. International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement. Duke University Press. pp. 156, 157, 760. ISBN 978-0-8223-1066-2.

[2] Robichaud, Daniel; Cooren, Francois. Organization and Organizing: Materiality, Agency and Discourse. Routledge. p. 180. ISBN 978-1-136-20733-4.

[3] Yearbook on International Communist Affairs. Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-8179-8321-5.

[4] Maitan, Livio. Per una storia della IV Internazionale: la testimonianza di un comunista controcorrente (in Italian). Alegre. p. 468. ISBN 978-88-89772-08-9.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]