Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 26	April 28 >

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 00:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Amico[edit]

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

Topic notability is low Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 00:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 00:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find multiple sources of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources about him to meet WP:GNG. Also doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST. One of those long-time journalists that dont generate much coverage about themselves.—Bagumba (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. This and this do not qualify as significant coverage of the subject, while this and this are interviews. I am seeing lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. --Ashley yoursmile! 15:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Not enough independent reliable sources. does not meet WP:GNG , WP:JOURNALIST. Alex-h (talk) 08:31, 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. Courcelles 23:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Amico[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP with notability concerns. Attempts to find sources returned many articles written by Sam Amico, but I couldn't find any about Sam Amico. Reach Out to the Truth 17:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a prolific writer, but mostly for minor publications. I could find nothing written ABOUT him by independent sources, except this which is from a blog. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2010 (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) 23:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Adewumi[edit]

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

Had been deproded w/o explanation, fails WP:BIO, more a case of WP:BIO1E CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM, un-notable except in the manner of her death. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is covered in the context of only one event (which was her death, quite unfortunately). The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 15:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks indepth coverage in reliable sources. Hypogaearoots (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM, non-notable. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not enough independent reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 08:39, 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chainlink (cryptocurrency)[edit]

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

Notability not established, tech blogs and Forbes/Bloomberg cannot be used to show notability. The sources cited do not contain indipendent research per ORGIND/CORPDEPTH, they are equivalent to PR reprints. Ysangkok (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article cites numerous perennial, reliable sources per WP:RSP, such as Reuters, ZDNet, Bloomberg and Forbes. Sources such as these^[1]^[2]^[3] are reliable sources that show particularly significant coverage. I think this clearly passes WP:GNG. Hocus00 (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hocus00: In the list of perennial sources, it is noted that "Forbes' contributors" are not Forbes staff, and cannot be trusted. Looking at the references of the article, they are all by contributors, not staff. see WP:FORBESCON. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok: This is not true. All of the Forbes cites used in the article are written by Forbes Staff. See 1 2 3. Which Forbes cites do you believe are written by Contributors? Hocus00 (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has plenty of coverage from reliable sources. Honestly surprised to see this nominated as it’s exactly the kind of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia. Star7924 (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Star7924: Why is it "exactly" the kind of thing? You're just making a statement with no explanation. Look at the referenced articles, and you'll see they contain no independent research, they are PR fluff pieces, they rely on Chainlink to provide correct information. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable cryptocurrency --Devoke water 14:49, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepytime Trio[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND, WP:GNG Graywalls (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the music group. The recordings have not charted on national music charts or received certifications or accolades. --Ashley yoursmile! 06:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND and GNG, lacks significant coverage. Hypogaearoots (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - defintely fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:08, 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. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 03:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Cooper (snooker player)[edit]

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

Unsure why this article has survived so long. A briefly professional snooker player who has not come close to winning anything or achieving any notability. Surely fails WP:NSPORT, the guidance for cue sportspeople, or WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Generally those who have played on the World Snooker Tour are deemed notable, but it's a bit harder to track down refs for those that did get onto the tour in the early 2000s. A quick google search found [1], [2], 22 pages of articles at BSA-Cuesports.com, and a tournament history of his time in the snooker seniors, where he won a tournament. He did actually win some matches on the tour, such as at the 2001 UK Championship. Sadly, our coverage of that time in snooker only really covers the last 32 onwards. He was actually ranked 90th in the world, where we usually deem players in the top 128 as notable. The article, is indeed in poor shape. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks to me like the subject meets GNG. A search for "'Wayne Cooper' snooker" on NewsBank returns 446 results. Whilst undoubtedly many of these are passing mentions, they also include quite a few with Cooper in the headline, e.g.:

"Cooper wins prize to play Hendry"; January 22, 2007; Bradford Telegraph and Argus
"Cooper on a double mission"; May 14, 2008; Bradford Telegraph and Argus
"Cooper overcomes Couch hoodoo"; January 23, 2008; Bradford Telegraph and Argus
"Cooper experiences a mixed championship"; February 11, 1999 West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire Counties Publications.

The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker, whilst probably not being evidence of meeting GNG in itself, has 70 match results for Cooper that could be used to help build out the article. Similarly, he is included in John Kobylecky's The Complete International Directory of Snooker Players – 1927 to 2018 which has all of his World Snooker Championship results.

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

V8 Live in Europe 2015[edit]

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

The recording fails WP:NALBUM. The album has not appeared on the national charts of any country, nor has it been certified or received major accolades. I could not find any coverage in multiple reliable independent sources which implies that it falls short of the general notability criteria. Nor could I find any album reviews that could provide independent evidence of notability of the extended play and indicate that a standalone article is at all appropriate. Ashley yoursmile! 18:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 18:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 18:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any evidence of significant coverage in repuatable sources, reviews, or any evidence the single charted anywhere. Sionk (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. This four-track live album appears to be the only thing the band ever released, apart from one single. Created by a SPA who stated that they were working directly with the band's singer to create articles for everything he had been involved in. A redirect seems to be pointless here, as the band's article is also likely to be deleted for failing WP:GNG. Richard3120 (talk) 19:33, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Vandevelde[edit]

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

Although released as a single, the song does not have substantial coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent of the music group. A simple Google search turns up nothing, not even routine coverage on the song. The recording has not appeared on the national charts of any country, nor has it been certified or received major accolades. The only fact that the song was released independently as a single is not by itself reason for a standalone article since notability requires independent evidence. The article of the band has been nominated for deletion so it might it be worth discussing if a standalone article for the song is at all appropriate. Ashley yoursmile! 18:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 18:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 18:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any evidence of significant coverage in repuatable sources, reviews, or any evidence the single charted anywhere. Sionk (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NSONG. This single appears to be the only one the band ever released. Created by a SPA who stated that they were working directly with the band's singer to create articles for everything he had been involved in. A redirect seems to be pointless here, as the band's article is also likely to be deleted for failing WP:GNG. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: maybe Too Soon. Lesliechin1 (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be too soon, to be honest – this single is five years old, and the group appear to have disbanded shortly after its release. Richard3120 (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One article from Magic Music Magazine does not demonstrate notability. Nexus000 (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nexus000 above. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. does not meet WP:NSONG Alex-h (talk) 08:46, 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genies, Inc.[edit]

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

I know there are references, but this is essentially much publicity about nothing substantial. It's time we stopped including this sort of nonsense, even if it has to be by IAR. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Gnews search shows Bloomberg and Hollywood Reporter articles about them along with many other articles. Oaktree b (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources.^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

References

^ Anadiotis, George. "Chainlink launches Mainnet to get data in and out of Ethereum smart contracts". ZDNet.
^ Anadiotis, George. "Chainlink 2.0 brings off-chain compute to blockchain oracles, promotes adoption of hybrid smart contracts". ZDNet.
^ "'Link Marines' Are Making an Obscure Cryptocurrency Red Hot". Bloomberg.com. 17 August 2020.
^ Josh Constine (8 December 2017). "Meet 'Genies,' the lifelike personalized avatars that reenact news". Techcrunch. Retrieved 27 April 2021.
^ Chris Gardner (10 May 2019). "Now Celebrity Avatars Can Hire Their Own Agents". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 27 April 2021.
^ Dean Takahashi (20 October 2020). "Genies will let consumers create their own 3D avatars with Giphy and Gucci". VentureBeat. Retrieved 27 April 2021.
^ Sophie Alexander (19 November 2018). "Genies Uses Famous Athletes, and Their Money, to Take On Bitmoji". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 27 April 2021.
^ Emma Kwan (20 March 2019). "Mountain View High grads launch popular Genies avatar app". Los Altos Town Crier. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Bloomberg, Forbes, TechCrunch are all reliable sources. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw AfD as this is clearly going to be kept. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Restaurant Association of India[edit]

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

No significant coverage from the given sources. All the sources are giving some routine or incidential coverage to the organisation. I did a WP:Before and the results were also disappointing. The subject ddoes not have WP:ORGDEPTH hence failing WP:ORG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some of organisation there should be an article about. The 1982 establishment shows WP:SUSTAINED though I'm far from convinced it was significant before and perhaps even for a while after the turn of the century. Recognised by the FSSAI to assist in safety work per [3] & [4]. The Hookah litigations were significant [5] even though the membership was 1,200 in 2014 (now 2018). More recently NRAI seems more active in the Zomato-NRAI disagreement [[6]] and in the Covid-19 world: [7]. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage is quite significant where the community is involved with govt and almost every month they have indepth discussion, comments and suggestion for all 5 lakh Restaurant Community as per the above & page sources, which is not incidental. Rest Djm-leighpark brought pretty good sources. Sonofstar (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve These sort of organisations are frequently in the news, but they themselves are not news, they're there to promote the cause of their members and the wider sector; that's why it will be difficult to find sigcov of NRAI itself. Still, I think the sources already cited are just about enough to satisfy WP:GNG, and I'm pretty sure more can be found if the search is extended back in time (there must have been some coverage when this outfit was set up 40 years ago) and/or to books etc. offline sources. That said, the article currently has issues, and should be overhauled and trimmed down to just key facts (meaning pretty much just the lead section). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nom., whilst in apparent good standing at time of nom., has subsequently been blocked.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete the article since the subject is notable for multiple notable events. Dhawangupta (talk) 16:00, 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 withdrawn. Withdrawing nomination per sources provided in below comment. Considering how recent song AfDs have gone the trend can be anticipated. (non-admin closure) N Ø 21:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Out (Camila Cabello song)[edit]

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

Nothing really seems to have changed since the last time this was nominated for deletion. The same rationale still applies: Per WP:NSONGS. Album track with no media coverage, commentary is from the album review.-- N Ø 17:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Found reviews of the song in Spin and Idolator and this is a "track-by-track review. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:34, 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. Tone 17:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Zak[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist, article previously deleted for being created by a blocked account. Might be useful to check if this is an identical copy. nearlyevil 665 17:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 17:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only find stories by her, not about her. Oaktree b (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I found this article about her, but that was it. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and improve~~ Neutral ~~Per ANYBIO 1,~~ "She has won Emmy and Edward R. Murrow awards for her work," says Variety Also news stories about her televised clash with a Trump lawyer.[8][9][10] HouseOfChange (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC) Update I am persuaded by SailingInABathTub, and by my failure to find independent coverage of those awards or in-depth coverage of Zak, that the ANYBIO1 does not apply. She seems impressive but that does not make her notable in Wikipedia's terms. Also, the article seems to have been created as a COATRACK from the arrest of her husband, definitely not a criterion for a new article. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning America and ABC News won the Emmys, and in each case Zak was part of a very large team named on the award. The variety piece is just a single paragraph routine appointment announcement, and the other sources all refer to the same event (WP:BIO1E). Zac is also not given significant coverage in each article - they don't include much information about her (other than her being accused of being "bloodthirsty for ratings"). SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't notable before her husbAnd got arrested for fraud, so how is she notable now? 204.111.130.143 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete, the references provided didn't establish her notability. Her televised actions against Trump's defense attorney is quite interesting, but doesn't establish any notability. WP:BIO1E, clearly didn't pass WP:GNG SunDawn (talk) 03:52, 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 speedy delete. The first version of the article was advertising copy, found in the subject's own publications, handed over to an obvious undeclared paid editor eleven years ago. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James "Bird" Guess[edit]

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

No secondary sources seem to exist for this person, most references are primary or do little more than promote the subject. Several secondary references are deadlinks and not found in Wayback. Article reads like an advertisement and was heavily edited by user Speakerbird which seems WP:CoI (not reported). HalJor (talk) 17:00, 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 no consensus. ✗plicit 00:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snitching (song)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP: NSongs. Only presents one good source, Hot New Hip Hop. Times of India only mentions the video and cites the lyrics of the song. Entering charts doesn't mean a song is notable. The rest of the article is composed of album reviews and "self-interested parties" such as a manager and producers. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redierct to the album article Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon, not seeing anything myself (t · c) buidhe 01:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon - Coverage from album reviews should be condensed and incorporated in the Music and lyrics section of the album article. It does not contribute to the song meeting notability standards per WP:NSONG.--N Ø 08:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the story of the song's inspiration and it being passed on constitute notability, with the former having an independent source of the album, plus chart positions help pass the guideline somewhat too. --K. Peake 07:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Peake it's a brief mention that can be incorporated on the album article. Unlike "Gangstas" that makes several references to 6ix9ine as an inspiration. Nevertheless, I respect your opinion. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW close due to being the same nonsensical nomination MarioSoulTruthFan has made to other song articles recently, which I have explained in his other Afds why they're nonsense. Speaking of which, he tried to do something similar with an article on a One Direction as notable as this one, and got his ass handed to him on a platter for a good reason. XD 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per there only being a few charts, although I disagree with MarioSoul on the significance of these kind of charts in general. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ashley yoursmile! 16:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficient coverage exists to justify a stand-alone article. "Charts indicate a song may be notable" heavily implies they should not be combined with the strictest possible interpretation of SIGCOV. Where obvious and unambiguous SIGCOV exists combined with enough borderline coverage to produce an article of good quality (I stand by my comments at the Moments AfD; NSONGS strictly interpreted is not our most glorious SNG), chart ranking should certainly be accepted to move borderline articles to confident keeps. Vaticidalprophet 19:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agreed with Vaticidalprophet on this. The song has charted in several charts, I don't see any the reason why the article need to be redirected. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon: does not fit into WP:NSONG CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:04, 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're the One (The Black Keys song)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NSONG; I can't find any in-depth significant coverage, only this very short review from Contactmusic.com and a mention of the song in this listicle from diffuser.fm. The single did not chart anywhere and I don't see any other obvious indication of notability. Should probably be redirected to Magic Potion (album) if notability can not be established. Lennart97 (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you say. Redirect to Magic Potion (album). How on earth did this page last for so long (9 April 2010)? Foxnpichu (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found anouther reliable sources only about the song itself Drowned in Sounds, along with the Contactmusic. com and the other listicle. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good find - this one is an actual piece of full-length, significant coverage. I do think the case for notability is still pretty borderline, considering the brevity of the other two sources, but if a keep consensus emerges from this I'm happy to accept it. Lennart97 (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the source, but I wouldn’t really say it on its own is enough. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by MarioSoulTruthFan and nom. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magic Potion (album) per the caveat of WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ashley yoursmile! 16:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG Thedangeroz (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC) — Thedangeroz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect the vague waves at NSONG are not helpful, per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. The little material that can be found isn't enough to support a full-fledged article. This should be redirected to the album page, with the details included there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so what I’m getting here is everybody wants this to either be Kept or Redirected, but we can’t agree on which of the two. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:15, 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 17:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

V8 (UK band)[edit]

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

After a search for coverage of the band, its members, or its works; I've not found in-depth, reliable, independent, sources. I don't think it ticks any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Anybody else want to give it a go? Let's discuss. Scottyoak2 (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Scottyoak2 (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Scottyoak2 (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this was created by a SPA back in 2016 who stated that they were working with Donnie Vie to create pages for everything related to him and his bands [11]. A quick look at their contributions suggests that this article and absolutely everything else they created fails WP:GNG, but I'll need to have a proper look. The four-track live album and solitary single appear to be only only things the band ever released. Richard3120 (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the exceessive unsourced detail suggests this article is here for the wrong reasons. The band was briefly active quite recently in historical terms, so if there was coverage, it should be available. Neither does V8 seem to have released any notable recordings. The two main members seem to have been so prolific, there is barely a mention of V8 in the occasional articles about them. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Setyawan[edit]

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

WP:1E as mentioned in here. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. Most of pre-2021 sources for this person are in Indonesia and the ARS would waste its time for rescuing this article. I have rescued this article to IDWIKI instead, where people would at least understand what the Indonesian sources mean. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jeromi Mikhael: As you also created the page, are you saying you now believe the page should be deleted, or did you open this AfD on behalf of the commenters at WP:ITNC?—Bagumba (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: I opened this on behalf of the commenters. Is it ok if I ping them to come here? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeromi Mikhael: It's your prerogative. For another perspective, Zeke Upshaw's AfD also originated from ITN, but was speedily kept. Sometimes, ITN participants wrongfully assume that a new bio can't be notable just because it didn't exist before their death. If you personally believe this is notable, you do still have the option of withdrawing this nomination, as nobody has formally supported this AfD yet. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: If this article passes AfD I'll nominate this for ITN again. I'll wait for the blurb to disappear first, though. I have encountered similar circumstances before where the article subject is a result of blurbed event (Mulyadi Tamsir). Strangely the article I mentioned has no opposition tho. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer eligible for RD, as the subject has been deceased for over one week. This is the primary reason I don't like taking RD noms to AfD. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those who oppose the ill-fated nomination based on WP:1E. @GreatCaesarsGhost, Modest Genius, and Masem: --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITN is an exercise in fuility. By the time this is resolved, it will be deemed "old" and "stale." Won't happen. Your best path to the main page is WP:DYK, IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I've commented below. Modest Genius ^talk 10:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage of him personally, and he played a notable role in the event. Quoting WP:1E exclusively - the article would only be valid to merge (which would be preferable to deletion) "if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage", but instead there are multiple references covering him published well before the event so a merge is not possible. The article correctly exists, as "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate" and "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified", which are both met due to extensive coverage of him personally due to being the highest ranking naval officer of a headline news piece for multiple days. The intention of the rule is to stop WP:PSEUDO-biographies focused solely on an individual's role in an event; his biography is not focused on the event, with only five-sentences for it, and the remainder of the article being a high quality biography considering what information is available. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this article is truly 1E, it doesn't read that way to me at least; the article is perfectly balanced and discusses his military career in depth. It reminds me a bit of the article Luca Attanasio, a bio that was created after his death and which me and some other editors got the Main Page as an RD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is difficult for me to assess, as all the pre-death sources are in Indonesian, which I don't speak. The article has been substantially expanded since the ITN nomination and now contains much more information on his prior career, so does seem less of a WP:BIO1E issue than it was when I first saw it. However, I worry that reporting of those naval command appointments, sporting results etc. might be WP:ROUTINE, which would not establish notability independently of the sub sinking. That is, if you exclude the reporting of his death, and the routine sources, is there still substantial coverage of him in the references? I'll defer to those that speak Indonesian and assume good faith in their assessment of those sources. Modest Genius ^talk 10:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its fair enough to keep this individual given the sourcing - the situation at ITN was the fact that in a mass disaster like the sub sinking, focusing on one person that wasn't readily notable beforehand, calling out one person out of 56 would be problematic. But outside of ITN, there's no reason this article can't exist. --Masem (t) 12:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What happens in WP:ITN is not relevant as news from one person is too much, but this article should stand. Yes, he gain more notability after the sinking of the sub, but based on what I read his notability is well established well before the sinking of the sub.SunDawn (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. for reasons cited above. Meets WP:GNG, quite apart from the last event. WP:HEY 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I believe the question is, "Would this meet GNG prior to the sub loss?" In my interpretation (not being able to read the sources), the prior refs appear to be routine coverage of an ordinary military career from non-diverse sources that are likely just printing government press releases. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons noted above, WP:GNG has clearly been met, there's enough here to justify a stand-alone article. --Jayron 32 17:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the time of his death, the subject held the rank equivalent to that of Captain in Anglophone navies. He appears to be at least as notable as Ralph Kerr, final captain of HMS Hood, and John Leach, final captain of HMS Prince of Wales, each of whom went down with his ship. As English Wikipedia purports to cover the whole world, the fact that he was not enlisted in the navy of an Anglophone country is irrelevant to the question of notability. Bahnfrend (talk) 19:23, 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 00:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mix[edit]

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

inactive and non-notable YouTube channel -- dylx^{(t | c)} 14:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. -- dylx^{(t | c)} 14:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3 articles does not demonstrate WP:GNG. One doesn't exist, one is behind a paywall, another is a trivial mention. Nexus000 (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a YouTuber needs to meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:11, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soham Lahiri[edit]

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

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

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

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN notabilty cannot be inherited from a "famous" father. Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – he might be a talented young man, but that does not mean he is notable. It looks like he has been mentioned a few times in local newspapers, but I can't see anything that amounts to significant coverage, so WP:GNG is not met, and neither is WP:ENT. Maybe he will become notable in the future, and then somebody unconnected to him will probably create an article. --bonadea contributions talk 14:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article appears to have been declined twice at AFC, by virtue of that alone I can’t agf. This article will be deleted, not for the stubbornness of the article creator but because the subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have SIGCOV.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, article also looks promotional. ColinBear (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG Thedangeroz (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC) — Thedangeroz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: for what everyone else said, plus annoyance that creator twice moved from Draft to Article after it had failed AfC. David notMD (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and doesn't have any sigcov. Poppified ^talk 04:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Father page is also going through AFD. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of above Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable Bengali Personality with coverage in multiple reliable sources including printed newspapers of Bengali language.This is a clear case of systemic bias. Vtbn21 (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC) — Vtbn21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Notable Bengali poet and guitarist with coverage in multiple reliable sources including printed newspapers of Bengali language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.251.171.102 (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC) The DUCK is quacking strongly here... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with all the "delete" voters above. Good luck to the kid but he has not yet been noticed outside of his family circle. The previous voter who has accused the community of systemic bias is encouraged to provide evidence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Can't inherit from his father. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This subject meets WP:GNG. The person has many in-depth coverage including one in the most renowned and wide circulated daily newspaper Puber Kalom [12]. I would request the nom Theroadislong to please include this discussion in Bengali subject related articles. Articles from the West Bengal, India lacks online publications. Vtbn21 (talk) 4:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC) — Vtbn21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above has already !voted keep above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is from Puber Kalom. Other print editions cut-out of many newspapers has been uploaded on Wix site. The Bengali language newspapers have less online presence. Any Bengali language editor can tell you that. This is why I mentioned systemic bias in my earlier comment. Vtbn21 (talk) 5:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
You still need to show us how these sources contribute to the article subject meeting WP:GNG (which is not helped by the fact you're not providing translations for those of us who don't read Bengali) - i.e. the sources need to provide significant coverage (a passing mention is not enough, and the coverage needs to be more than just routine run-of-the-mill stuff), the sources need to be independent from the article subject (so not the person's website or social media accounts), and there needs to be multiple of them. You also seriously must stop using multiple accounts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One reference is from Puber Kalom which link I have provided. Articles in renowned and widely circulated newspaper proves that he is notable. Not only that his name was also published on other newspapers but they have no any online publications as I have said that India lacks oline publication. For that the other cited sources have been provided with publication name, date, reporter name and newspaper name with their RNI no. for verification in the notes section. You can also see here [[13]]. I would request the nom Theroadislong to Please check them. Vtbn21 (talk) 4:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tone Dale House[edit]

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

Similar to Francis Fox of St Germans, Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, and this reads like an effort to preserve Fox family history and an advertisement for The Big House Co. Penale52 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The existing mentions in Wellington, Somerset are enough. Wire723 (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wouldn't this meet WP:GEOFEAT #1 as a listed building? Or is Grade II common enough it doesn't get the free pass? I'm not quite sure how we handle listed buildings with GEOFEAT. Although, if kept, a good bit of off-topic genealogical material would need trimmed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 18:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with edits to the to long versions of genealogical material, though residents might listed. Djflem (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed building. Clearly passes WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed building. It passes WP:GEOFEAT. Hypogaearoots (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References demonstrate notability. Nexus000 (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete Grade II listing hasn't generally been taken as conferring notability, and the article seems to be more family history than about the building itself. Mangoe (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but WP:TNT the article and make it about the house alone, there's way too much cruft here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 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 delete. WP:TOOSOON Missvain (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Wilford[edit]

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

DJ/producer who isn't quite there yet (WP:TOOSOON). Hasn't charted and hasn't received substantial coverage about her, mostly just passing mentions and press releases. TAXIDICAE💰 12:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. I see lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Sources used in the article, (excepting this) such as this and this are blogs, this constitutes as a passing mention while this is an interview with the subject and does not include any commentary from the interviewer which makes it neither secondary nor independent, and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. The subject is not notable as a musician or a broadcaster with no recordings that have charted on national charts, or received certifications or accolades, or any in-depth coverage in the relevant field of work. --Ashley yoursmile! 15:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes notability guidelines. Thedangeroz (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC) — Thedangeroz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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! 03:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dinah Lee Küng[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:AUTHOR. Undersourced: self published ('Eyes and Ears publishing' is a two-author imprint from Switzerland). A Visit for Voltaire was longlisted for the Orange Prize, that's it. Beyond this we have no grounds for notability - no media coverage. WP:Author uses the word 'significant' - this is where we fall down here. There's nothing significant. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the deletion recommendation. Besides the Orange prize for fiction nomination, she also won an Overseas Press Club of America Award for her reporting, and won an commendation in the BBC playwriting contest for Dear Mr. Rogge. Her books have been reviewed in The Guardian, and gotten starred reviews in Publisher’s Weekly. Her reporting has been gathered and cited in a number of books and journals on public policy issues and international affairs. Her coverage in Google Scholar is scattered because she has written under multiple names (Dinah Lee, DL Kung, and Dinah Lee Küng).LingLass (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, notability for journalists include that “The subject is a senior staff writer, editor, or columnist (sports, arts and entertainment, etc.) at a major news source including… A notable regional, national, or international newspaper or magazine (such as The Detroit Free Press, The New York Times, or Time)." And indeed, Küng was bureau chief at Business Week and again at the Economist.LingLass (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the notability test you refer to is part of Wikipedia:Notability (journalists), a failed proposal. The consensus notability criteria for journalists can be found at WP:NJOURNALIST, and it's somewhat more restrictive. pburka (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. Her books have been reviewed by multiple reliable sources (Kirkus, PW, The Guardian), as pointed out by LingLass above. pburka (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More media coverage has been cited to indicate WP:NAUTHOR notability: reviews in Kirkus, PW (starred), The Guardian, Chicago Tribune, The Buffalo News, author coverage in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, mention by other authors, and discussion of the Orange-nominated book in Tablet Magazine.LingLass (talk) 16:57, 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 12:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giri (company)[edit]

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

Except the Live Mint article, not able to find any more citations to pass notability. Fails WP:ORG for now. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I found several mentions, even some paragraphs in reliable sources, but not enough to constitute significant coverage. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP criteria HighKing⁺⁺ 20:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing mentions only, no SIGCOV, fails NORG. See also WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 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 per WP:SNOW. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salah Eddine Saadouni[edit]

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

Non-notable director, article deleted a week ago for failing to demonstrate notability. Nothing in this version suggests a pass of WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 11:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - badly fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE; zero coverage in WP:RS; only self-published sources available thus far. In addition, he has never been involved in a notable production. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have a feeling the author of this page is unaware how Wikipedia works and is trying to shut down this discussion by placing this on the nominated article's talk page. I reverted that as potential vandalism and issued a warning, and the author proceeded to place three identical fake keep tags on their own user talk page. I'm very confused. nearlyevil 665 12:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm even more confused. Now a user with only 1 edit posted the exact same fake tag on their user talk page. I assume they created a sockpuppet account to put up these useless fake keep notices. nearlyevil 665 12:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nearlyevil665 - really odd. Never seen anything like it before. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a WP:SPAMPAGE, no independent coverage found whatsoever, and no indication of notability. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the above. ColinBear (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a vanity page to me. With only self-published and user-generated sources supporting the statements of the article and nothing that can be found that qualifies as substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, the subject fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. --Ashley yoursmile! 15:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One French article, one in Arab I can't read and that's all I can find. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG + WP:CREATIVE + no WP:RS at all CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:09, 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 redirect to Adtalem Global Education. ✗plicit 09:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EduPristine[edit]

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

Most of the news is funding related. The company might do substantial work and become notable in future. Fails WP:NCORP for now. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adtalem Global Education: Subject isn't notable on it's own but it could still be a searchable term. ColinBear (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adtalem Global Education Thedangeroz (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC) — Thedangeroz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect to Adtalem Global Education as the most appropriate option as per WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:21, 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 12:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gouri Agarwal[edit]

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

Single significant role, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG criteria.--Aleyamma38 (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, played a main role in a notable TV series that "went off air abruptly without conclusion on 22 April 2021 due to its very low ratings", probably WP:NOT YET (actors). SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON, currently fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. --Ashley yoursmile! 15:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sunshine1191 (talk) 13:53, 5 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 per WP:SNOW. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy night[edit]

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

Non-notable film, fail of WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. nearlyevil 665 11:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 11:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable YouTube video; no awards, no significant coverage, not revolutionary in any way; fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Only escapes speedy deletion due to films not being eligible for WP:A7. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's WP:SPAM, no coverage found at all. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. ColinBear (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious spam page. With no substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, the subject is non-notable. --Ashley yoursmile! 15:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and literally zero coverage. Mukedits (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFILM, see WP:SPAM CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:10, 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 merge to List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 04:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Channel series[edit]

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

I really think this page is unnecessary. Each channel and Disney+ originals are located in its resentful subheading in their "List of programs" article. If this were to be allowed, then every other channel would have a "List of ___ series", which then refers to WP:NOTTVGUIDE. kpgamingz (rant me) 11:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. kpgamingz (rant me) 11:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this has been addressed ad nauseum at AFD over the years, NOTTVGUIDE is about ephemeral scheduling details; indexes of notable TV series by their originating network are completely appropriate (and are clearly not an "electronic program guide"). And "every other channel" does have such as list, see Category:Lists of television series by network. We also categorize this, Category:Original programming by American television network or channel, because it is considered WP:DEFINING of each series, an even higher standard than we have for maintaining lists. postdlf (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To aid the closer, I have no objection to merging. postdlf (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel and convert to a redirect. This article is completely duplicative of List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel (which is the correct article titling format for an article such as this) – there is no need for two articles on effectively the same topic. Any original content at this article should be merged (though I doubt there is any), and this should then be converted to a redirect to the latter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, there is definitely some overlap though it appears that having this split off separately was intentional; see the hatnote at List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel, and both pages have existed for at least fifteen years. I don't have a real opinion on whether it should be combined or kept separate, but it's clear that the nomination is incorrect in asserting that we shouldn't keep any such lists at all. postdlf (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel and convert to a redirect Per IJBall. Amaury • 18:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel Outside of theatrical films, it's rare that DC has content acquired outside the company since the mid-90s, and this is fully duplicative of the list-of. Nate • (chatter) 19:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel and convert to a redirect Per IJBall and above. Hypogaearoots (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel and convert to a redirect. A complete duplication of it, is unnecessary. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:03, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nerea Gabirondo[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG unfortunately and definitely fails WP:NFOOTBALL. A similar case to recently deleted Concepción Ricarte in that there is no in-depth coverage about the player. I have checked the Wikipedia articles in other languages and not found any sources about her from those. The Marca reference is a trivial mention. So is this in El Diario Vasco. A Spanish search came back with a brief injury announcement, which is routine coverage with no depth. The only remotely decent Basque coverage is this Q&A, which is not enough to pass GNG on its own and contains no analysis or commentary on her from other people.

There are many Spanish players that fail NFOOTBALL but pass GNG, such as Cristina Pizarro and Ainara Manterola, both of whom contain significant analysis and coverage from big Spanish newspapers; this isn't the case with Gabirondo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV on the subject hence she fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, only trivial coverage en el mundodeportivo, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:20, 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 delete. ✗plicit 10:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fesenko group[edit]

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

The term "Fesenko group" seems to appear only in a paper by one of Fesenko's own students. In mathematics, a term is normally named after a person only after several, independent authors have used it. In particular, a search for the term in the two authoritative bibliographical databases for Mathematics, MathSciNet and zbMATH, does not return any result. P-adicNum (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. P-adicNum (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The terminology is used in a few other papers citing Griffin's paper (e. g. Ershov and Barnea et al. in the list on zbmath : https://zbmath.org/?q=rf%3A1160.20305).

That said the topic looks much too niche to have a full article about it, especially since the properties it seems to be interesting for (for example being just infinite) do not seem to have their own article on wikipedia. If the AfD was motivated by this kind of consideration I'd likely agree with deletion. jraimbau (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I completely agree with jraimbau. That's exactly the point of the AfD P-adicNum (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable under this name, and in fact the term is so obscure — a grand total of four distinct hits on Google Scholar, one of which is a false positive — that it's not a plausible search term, and so merging or redirecting isn't really advisable. Contrast this with Nottingham group, for which dozens of sources are easily available. XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too niche to have an article about it, not enough independent sources. Tercer (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Technically the Griffin paper gives this in-depth independent coverage but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: with only one usage of the term in an RS, we should certainly consider this to be a neologism. Some of the content might find a home elsewhere, but we must not have a redirect. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:48, 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 merge to Heartful Café. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 04:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heartful Café episodes[edit]

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

Standalone list of episodes of a new tv series. At this point it is not needed and would be better included in the article for the series rather than as a separate article. noq (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Heartful Café per nom - simply no point in having a separate article when the parent is only a stub itself. Can always be split later on if the article becomes too lengthy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Spiderone. No need for an AFD to do that. postdlf (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Heartful Café per Spiderone. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. WP:TOOSOON to merge it to the main article since it hasn't ended yet. SBKSPP (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its too soon to create it. Having two small articles about the same series splits the content unnecessarily. Better to keep it in one article. noq (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per SBKSPP. The show is about to enter its 2nd week of airing. Since it's ongoing, the list will be expanded for the succeeding weeks. It does not have a fixed total number of episodes and therefore is definitely WP:TOOSOON for a merger. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per Spiderone. I don't expect the parent article Heartful Café to be expanded (a brief summary or plot if the show ends is enough), unless someone will modify the entire article similar to the style of May Bukas Pa (2009 TV series), which has been tagged with excessive details and more like a fandom-style article than a neutral article (tagged since February 2020) — a silent but serious problem among Philippine television soap opera articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:55, 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 no consensus. I'm going with no consensus on this one. There are also some newer sources presented, but, it doesn't appear people are engaging here regarding it (and we can only relist so many times!). Highly suggest improving the article and feel free to renominate for AfD if you feel it doesn't deserve inclusion in WP. Missvain (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretoria Muslim School[edit]

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

Originally PROD'd with the concern that "This article has had no sources at all for over 11 years. This is a highly egregious violation of verifiability"

De-prodded as there has been some coverage due to its Matric results

I don't think that coverage is sufficient to meet GNG and schools are no longer automatically notable Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I de-prodded the article on the basis of WP:CONTN, and to give it a fair chance of being saved, because there is a reasonable amount of coverage in WP:RS over a number of years (either as "Pretoria Muslim School" or "Tshwane Muslim School") e.g. [14] [15] [16][17]. I suppose it could be notable as an example of a community-run religious school in a township being competitive with top-tier private schools. There was a lot of unsourced material that has been removed. It's also probably got a lot more coverage from RS than many other SA schools on Wikipedia. That said WP:OTHER is a thing, and I don't feel strongly either way (WP:GLOBAL aside, there should probably be more deletions of SA schools than less).Park3r (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I mostly agree with Park3r here. Except three of the references provided by them are human interest stories that have less to do with the school and more to do with students of it. Plus, two of them are from the same news outlet. I couldn't find anything better either. That said, if someone can come up with a few more good quality sources that address the school directly and in-depth I think there could be a good case for keeping the article. Just not as things currently stand. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:19, 11 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) 06:39, 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?} 09:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, here are a couple of additional sources on an attack at the school.^[1]^[2]

References

^ Alex Mitchley (25 February 2020). "Tshwane school attack: Father shot and critically wounded, wife and son assaulted". News24. Retrieved 27 April 2021.
^ Andile Sicetsha (25 February 2020). "Tshwane Muslim School attack: Three injured in shooting incident". The South African. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

SailingInABathTub (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 09:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lynx bus routes (Orlando)[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR and not encyclopedic. No indication anywhere that these are notable routes and neither is the group as a set. Asher Heimermann (talk)

@Asher Heimermann: You did not date your post, notify the author, transclude the AfD to the log page where AfD participants and admins can find this (which has resulted in this being up for 17 days without any participation, closure or relisting), categorize or delsort the AfD or add any of the AfD templates onto this page. you may want to consider using WP:TW as this will do all of the above for you. SK2242 (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 02:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 02:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL, nothing notable about any of these routes. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:5P, Wikipedia is a gazetteer which lists geographical information. I would call a listing of bus routes geographical information and not a travel guide. We have plenty of lists of bus routes on Wikipedia as both standalone articles and subsections of the transit agency. As long as these lists are sourced there is no issue in having them and deleting such lists would leave a gap in coverage. Dough4872 12:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't serve as a list of geographical information though. It's a list of bus routes which are not permanent features and essentially products of cities' transport authorities. The only source in this article is the official website, and there are no secondary sources that validate this article's notability. Also just because some lists of bus routes exist, doesn't mean inherently, other lists should. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is just a list of non-notable bus routes and all the notable information about the bus routes are already mentioned in Lynx (Orlando). Suonii180 (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic per WP:NOTDIR. A summary of how many routes, the cities/counties where routes exit is fine but to have an entire article about non-notable bus routes is unacceptable. Routes change often, some are detoured and some are added and removed within weeks or months. The system has a route listing and map. Also see WP:NOTTRAVEL. Asher Heimermann (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm appreciative to Dough4872's argument how bus routes could be geographical information, to the extent that they make certain areas traversable and connect regions, cities etc., but in this case I find that there is nothing very specific about these bus routes compared to other means of transport, meaning they don't really have meaning in a geographical sense. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please see deletion discussion here. The nominator is on a crusade of bad-faith WP:IDL deletion nominations, each lacking policy-based arguments, lacking even a shred of prior discussion over whether the list articles in general have merit, and taking the offense against each keep voter's arguments. $ɱ$ (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check the editing history of this AfD. The article was nominated by someone else. They didn't transclude it properly so I fixed it for them. Ajf773 (talk) 09:24, 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 redirect to List of Two and a Half Men characters#Walden Schmidt. Commenters didn't specify a target but this one seems most appropriate. No prejudice against using some of the content to expand that section (if appropriate within other policies/standards), but consensus is that this plot-only article should not stand on its own. (non-admin closure) — Bilorv (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walden Schmidt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION. The article is pure plot summary, aside of the section on 'character development', but that is almost entirely and at much bigger length covered at Two_and_a_Half_Men#Sheen's_dismissal_and_replacement already. While that incident that led to one actor being fired and another being added (with this character introduced to the show), I don't see what makes this overgrown plot summary merit its own stand-alone article. Also note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Harper (Two and a Half Men) was just closed as delete with nobody objecting - this is no better. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Harper (Two and a Half Men) was not just closed as delete. The actual result was redirect and so all the content and edit history is still there. See WP:HONEST. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, Honestly, don't you think your vote should have a rationale? WP:AFDNOTAVOTE and NOTARANT either. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to see that Alan Harper (Two and a Half Men) is a blue link not a red link and the full history back to 2008 is still available. Nothing was deleted in that case and this is as it should be per our policy WP:PRESERVE. There's no case for deletion in this similar case either and so my !vote stands, being based on both policy and accurate evidence. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, All you are making the case for is that WP:SOFTDELETE is preferable to hard delete. Which I actually agree with. But you are still not providing any policy-based argument for voting keep. Redirecting after a soft delete is not the same as 'keeping' the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is use of the function which restricts view of the page and its history to admins. That's the primary purpose of these discussions -- to establish whether an admin is empowered to use this function. Anything else means that we keep the content and its history in public view for further development. Two and a Half Men is a large topic which merits more than one page to cover all its various aspects – it currently has over 20. Exactly how this is sliced and diced is comparatively unimportant. See WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:PRESERVE. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The blatant falsehood of the nomination has still not been addressed, "note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Harper (Two and a Half Men) was just closed as delete". The actual close of that nomination was not delete and so the content is still there. Bludgeoning is quite inappropriate in such circumstances. See The Mote and the Beam. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The means of the character being written into the show are definitely relevant to the character, but it is much more relevant to the actual show and the Sheen debacle. Given that it is ultimately just going to be a duplication of information, it's not really something that can be used to justify the character article. If some good reception sources can be found, it might be salvageable. TTN (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - some of the sources currently in the article looked like they would help establish that the character meets WP:GNG, but when reading them I did not find that they provide any depth of coverage. I also failed to find appropriate coverage to argue that GNG is met when I did a BEFORE-style search. I'll watchlist this AfD discussion in case others have more success in finding good sources than I did. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect fails GNG, Andrew is not making any argument to keep SK2242 (talk) 05:42, 5 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 Withdrawn. Missvain (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali Kayastha[edit]

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

This is a WP:POVFORK of Kayastha article. Since, that article is under extended confirmed protection. Some of the editors who are owning the article are reverting any new changes. For example high quality sources from Taylor and Francis is reverted continuously by a new user to include Swami Vivekananda, a monk, who belong to Kayastha caste and couldn't be considered reliable as per WP:HSC. Similarly, all the sources which talk of only Brahmin and Kshatriya origin of Kayasthas are kept here and the lead section itself will tell you the caste promotional behaviour here. Since real Kayastha article is balanced with all view , they chose it for caste POV. On the basis of my discussion with Sitush, I am inclined to say that we don't need a seperate article on this, already important stuff are on Kayastha article. Heba Aisha (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator: massive edits were done to remove POV, since WP:CONTENTFORK are allowed not WP:POVFORK. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I trace my descent to one at whose feet every Brahmin lays flowers when he utters the words — यमाय धर्मराजाय चित्रगुप्ताय वै नमः — and whose descendants are the purest of Kshatriyas. If you believe in your mythology or your Paurânika scriptures, let these so-called reformers know that my caste, apart from other services in the past, ruled half of India for centuries. If my caste is left out of consideration, what will there be left of the present-day civilisation of India? In Bengal alone, my blood has furnished them with their greatest philosopher, the greatest poet, the greatest historian, the greatest archaeologist, the greatest religious preacher; my blood has furnished India with the greatest of her modern scientists

, included again and again to show descent of Kayastha from mythological Hindu gods, Vivekananda is actually glorifying his own community here, the main Kayastha page has stuff related to Shudra origin too. But here, they are reverting, i wonder, if they know WP:NOTCENSORED. Heba Aisha (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete! Just because a page is being vandalized doesn't mean that it should be deleted. The Wikipedia:POVFORK clearly doesn't apply to this page; the Bengali Kayasthas are a sub-group of the Kayastha community. All Wikipedia:Reliable sources treat them as such, including Karen Leonard (2006) , Hayden Bellenoit (2017), Ronald M. Davidson (2005). Kindly withdraw this proposal ASAP. Sattvic7 (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Hayden Bellenoit is removed by the user Advaita, as it talks the other way:
  A survey of Indian writers and observers suggests that many of those acquainted with the Kayasthas considered them as Dvija or twice-born. However, the claims of Bengali Kayasthas of having Dvija status is not supported by many other Indian observers. The Bengali Brahmins were most active in refuting these claims.
  ^[1] , it said this and since its against the claims of Brahmin and Kshatriya status, the user Advaita reverted it on malicious grounds.Heba Aisha (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sattvic7: I was merely against some of the sources of Heba Aisha, like Sadasivan and GK Ghosh. I had no intention to be a deterrent to any kind of constructive editing. I request :@Heba Aisha: to withdraw the proposal as well.

Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really understand the meaning of long standing consensus, Sitush said this about Vivekananda , it implies that at some point of time, they must have discussed about it with fellow editors. But, about G.K Ghosh, have u discussed, I don't think so, specially, not with your 2 month old account. At current version any neutral reviewer will come to conclusion that its nothing but a POV page, as from opening statement to end we can see wind flowing in one direction and you are owning article. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hayden J. Bellenoit (2017). The Formation of the Colonial State in India: Scribes, Paper and Taxes 1760-1860. Taylor & Francis. p. 178. ISBN 1134494297. Retrieved 19 April 2021.

Don't delete.. Hey Heba Aisha, this is simply ridiculous!! Only because you can't handle vandalism, an article would be nominated for deletion!! I am editing and protecting a number of caste & related articles for many years, and same goes for Sitush (he may not be very active now); and we have to keep on fighting with vandalism on a regular basis. If I go by your logic, then probably most of the caste articles would be deleted! There was clear consensus that since Kayastha is a cluster of 3 disparate groups, therefore each one will have a separate article for the sake of more details. So, are you also nominating the other two articles on the Chitraguptavanshis and CKPs for deletion as well for the same reason of being redundant? What we do is something you know, we request admins for protecting such pages, and keep on fighting against POV pushers and sock puppets. And please let me inform you that in fact, Sitush was actively involved during the phase when this article was renamed from Bengali Kayastha surnames to Bengali Kayastha, and the article took its current form with his active intervention. Hope, you will withdraw your proposal for deletion, and rather request for page protection, if required; it was you only who mentioned on my talk page few days back that this particular article is now balanced; therefore, you can always revert back to that version. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I was not talking about current version. The user Advaita constantly reverted new addition and balancing sources with this edit, and Sitush is also convinced that it's a POVFORK now. Here [18], plus I can't even fight vandals as vandals are reporting me, though report was cancelled as admin was not convinced that I did edit warring. So, let other editor decide. Btw, I am not seeing enough courage from anyone of you to do cleanup, it seems u are enjoying current version. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Heba Aisha:, stop calling me a vandal. There has been a content-dispute, which doesn't mean that I am a vandal. You seem to have had a personal vendetta against me. I have stated so many times that we needed a consensus and thus a robust discussion as to some sources. Kindly stop vilifying and defaming me. I am not a vandal. Moreover, you are reiterating that I am merely two months old, as if you had been here for twenty years. Come on! There had been a content-dispute, and let it be limited to that. I wonder how you can be so agitated by my existence here. Look into yourself. Have a sane mind. You are not peaceful yourself. At the end, I request you to stop calling me a vandal. I am here just like you, to contribute to Wikipedia. Shame on you! Don't ever call yourself constructive when you can't even work in coordination, when you can't even cooperate, constantly looking down upon new editors, as if you had invented Wikipedia. Let me tell you that I am a scholar myself, and I have spent years studying history and sociology and literature.

Advaita2222 (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ok, now let other uninvolved outsiders decide,plz note WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, even if less number of votes are against one view, other ways can be taken by admin. I may suggest, you to do the edits to bring down some of the POV violation in the article.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ironically, you think it is content dispute because of reliability of sources. Now this content is also sourced from same book Hayden Bellenoit:

Bengali Kayasthas are considered an offshoot of the northern Indian Chitraguptavanshi Kayasths group who claim descent from the sons of Chitragupta. They claim lineage from migrants to Bengal from the ancient city of Kannauj who came at the request of Sena Dynasty kings in the 10th century.

But, you welcome it and revert the thing from same book you find offensive.?Heba Aisha (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha:, I suggest we include the content with appropriate sources. Let's create a varna section and place it anywhere after the history section. For the history section must be more important for any page. Does that work? Say. I request you to go forward. Thank you for understanding. Let's cooperate now. I will be by you, trust me.

Advaita2222 (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead then, it should be the course of action before reverting my genuine edit continuously.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, :@Heba Aisha:, let's forget that now. We have reached a consensus. You can be calm now. Calm down! Let's work on the article to the fullest. If possible, I request you to add this somewhere in the section as well. Here it is: Of note, traditionally, the Hindu community in Bengal was divided into only two varnas: Brahmins and Shudras.[19] Advaita2222 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you take the lead. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, :@Heba Aisha:. Go ahead! Advaita2222 (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha:, I request you to withdraw the proposal now. I have made the changes as per our consensus. You can further work on it now. Thank you. 😊

Advaita2222 (talk) 17:28, 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 The Celebrity Circle. More prominent finish in the latter but feel free to edit redirect. czar 07:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saffron Barker[edit]

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

still not independently notable outside of her role in Strictly Come Dancing, where the previous AFD outcome was redirected. She isn't notable as a youtuber/tiktoker and the only "new" "coverage" is in gossip rags like the Daily Mail. IP has edit warred to restore the article against the previous consensus, so here we are. TAXIDICAE💰 15:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Strictly Come Dancing or The Celebrity Circle. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the first is probably more correct since that seems to be the primary source of any sort of coverage, and TCC seems like just a blip on the radar. But I don't really care either way. TAXIDICAE💰 15:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has had a lot more coverage from WP:RS BBC News. Passes WP:GNG with two major television show appearances and a quick google search comes up hundreds of reference regarding the subject. Since the last AFD she’s released clothing ranges, appeared on television shows such as The Celebrity Circle, and done a lot of work during the COVID-19 pandemic as shown by the BBC reference.Linsimay1 (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC) — Linsimay1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock strike --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either/both dancing shows. Oaktree b (talk) 18:29, 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. czar 07:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL being a for-profit organization, in which case the rule says "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." The WP:BEFORE gave us some references like Hans India and Yourstory but nothing that make it pass WP:NCORP as they are neither RS nor independent. Chirota (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not enough but I found one english language reliable source, The Hindu. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's zero references in the article and all I could find was a few trivial passing mentions in school directories. Along with a couple of news articles students. Nothing that would pass WP:NORG though. That said, at least we have one source thanks to SailingInABathTub (cool name btw). I'd be more then willing too change my vote to keep if someone can come up with two more good ones. It's possible I just missed them. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper above.--Ankit (Talk with me) 21:34, 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 delete. Previous AfD was only last month and nothing has changed. Fences&Windows 23:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samanea Bangkok Market[edit]

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

Non-notable real estate. Most likely previously deleted by another name a month ago. nearlyevil 665 06:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shouldn't this be speedy deleted if it is a recreation of the previously deleted article? – robertsky (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per CSD G4 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samanea Bangkok) CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, may I know the reason for it being speedily deleted? As I've made changes from the previous version and added more information from before. Thanks Kinemas123 (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The changes to the article are rather minimal (the G4 speedy deletion criterion is "sufficiently identical"); the added sources, as far as I can tell, appear to be copies of the same press release, so still don't show that the subject is notable. Whether or not the versions are similar enough to warrant speedy deletion will be decided by an admin, who might speedily delete the article or let this AfD run its course. In case of the latter, I'd say there's still no evidence of notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4. The only differences in here between the previously deleted version are the name of the designer, the two named shops, and the 330,000 sqm planned figure. I wouldn't consider this a significant difference, as the whole of the article is almost identical and the added facts don't create a new, strong claim of notability. Hog Farm _Talk 17:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you for the explanation. Does that mean if I add more sources from notable media it will be approved? Kinemas123 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Kinemas123, I suggest revisiting this article a couple months down the road and submit via the article creation process. Having it in notable media doesn't mean that it will get a pass, especially if the references are determined to be press releases in disguise. – robertsky (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) Delete & Salt I'm not sure why there's a speedy request and AfD running in parallel, but either way this should be deleted and the name salted. This company's paid editing has caused, and keeps causing, a huge amount of deletion work by creating articles on every single market this company operates, moving them around to different names, recreating after deletion, etc., and I think it's finally time to put a stop to it. I've so far not seen one that justifies an article; however, as a compromise, and only to stop this going on any longer, I could support one on the group as a whole, which could then list (in no more than short bullet points) the various venues they operate. But I repeat: none of the venues on their own should have articles, as they're all inherently non-notable ROTM markets. No matter how much the paid editor's paymasters might think otherwise. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- DoubleGrazing, AfD came first, CSD came some time in between my comment and the 2 speedy votes above. – robertsky (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Got it, thanks; didn't look at the timeline carefully enough. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 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. czar 07:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Utah VHF Society Aligned Repeaters[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. I've also AfD'd the article for the organization itself, here. Phuzion (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Phuzion (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - topic does not meet WP:LISTN nor fulfil any purpose at WP:LISTPURP. Appears to border on WP:NOTDIR as well. Possible ATD is to merge to Utah VHF Society if that somehow survives AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR. The organisation itself isn't notable either. Ajf773 (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR. Hypogaearoots (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:16, 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. Tone 17:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Musafire Syed Bachchu[edit]

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline or fails WP:GNG/ — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 22:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 22:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G5 I believe this is created by sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vallabharebel, have reported. Govvy (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 04:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali script, found brief mentions in cast lists, and a few superficial primary source interviews in which he talks about himself with no independent analysis by the interviewer,[20][21][22] but no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. One Meril-Prothom Alo Award nomination is a start, but isn't, "has been nominated for such an award several times". Not notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:19, 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 delete. ✗plicit 09:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Belt[edit]

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

non-notable concept with no set definition and very few non-trivial sources. Ew3234 (talk) 04:37, 27 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)} 07:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides the objections listed above, we should note what the term means in the real world. To a carpenter or woodworker, a paper belt is a continuous loop of sandpaper used in a belt sander. Carpenters who read this article will shake their heads in dismay. It's hard to load "four metropolitan areas with several important industries and political infrastructures" in a belt sander. Chisme (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only source for "some definitions" is actually Michael Gibson of the Thiel Foundation presenting what xe terms "some hyperbole", a nonce term created for the sake of argument. This is original research, misrepresenting its sources. Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 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 17:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eve (Mauritian TV series)[edit]

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

My WP:BEFORE search failed to uncover the multiple reliable, independent sources that would be required for the subject to pass WP:GNG. Perhaps other editors will have more success. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable sitcom, lack of substantial coverage in multiple, reliable independent sources. Google search does not turn up anything that demonstrates the notability of the subject. --Ashley yoursmile! 08:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. WP:GNG was established by 6 books listed about cattle judging. Some of those books should be incorporated as refs since the articles is under-sourced. (non-admin closure) ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 12:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Cattle judging[edit]

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

The "cattle judging" process may be notable, however, this article seems to be about "how to" judge cattle, which is against our policy WP:NOTHOWTO. Additionally, this article has been unsourced since 2007. Natg 19 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cattle#Modern husbandry; sources are also needed for that section, though. BD2412 T 03:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The process of judging cattle is highly notable as there are numerous books dedicated to the topic – see above. WP:NOTHOWTO is not a reason to delete because it is a stylistic issue: "an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." The article is not especially in this style; it just naturally lists the points which cattle are usually judged on. Insofar as the presentation might be improved on, this is done by ordinary editing, not deletion, per policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Andrew Davidson, cattle judging is the subject of numerous books.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ Edmund Harry Thompson (1919). Judging Beef Cattle. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
^ Walter Whittier Swett; R. R. Graves (1941). Judging Dairy Cattle on the Basis of Type and Records of Production. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
^ William Henry Black (1941). Judging Beef Cattle. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
^ Amer Benjamin Nystrom (1945). Dairy Cattle Judging. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
^ George W. Trimberger (1983). Dairy Cattle Judging Techniques. Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-0131963528.
^ Adam Leland Beam. Breeds of Dairy Cattle and Theory of Judging. Forgotten Books. ISBN 978-0265848173.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without prejudice to a later merger to something like Livestock judging, numerous sources cover the subject but a broader page may be preferable. Cavalryman (talk) 22:14, 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. Consensus is finally clear - no reason to run this out for a full week. Notability not established per either NFILM or GNG Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Nightmare Landlord[edit]

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

A Lifetime movie... Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. One review was found on WP:BEFORE from Cinemaholic [23] as well as few blog reviews. The article was PROD'ed by @Discospinster:, PROD was removed, asking to AFD it. Kolma8 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFILMS and WP:GNG. I'm seeing lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, this just lists the timings, this is a blog and this is questionable with no evidence of editorial oversight. Google search does not turn up sources that indicate that the film is notable to deserve a standalone article. --Ashley yoursmile! 04:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could find no reviews in reliable sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:55, 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 redirect to Fallin' Light. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fallin' Light (song)[edit]

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

Although released as a single, the song does not have substantial coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent of the music group, except the sole Billboard Japan article. The Oricon article states precisely the same information as that of the Billboard Japan article which is more like routine coverage without an actual discussion on the song's composition. The recording has not appeared on the national charts of any country, nor has it been certified or received major accolades. The only fact that the song was released independently as a single is not by itself reason for a standalone article since notability requires independent evidence. I had originally redirected the article but the page creator reverted it, so it might it be worth discussing if a standalone article for the song is at all appropriate. Ashley yoursmile! 03:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 03:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 03:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Fallin'_Light. This should be a soft redirect preserving history. Samboy (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fallin'_Light. Lesliechin1 (talk) 18:58, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harsha Iyer[edit]

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

Contested PROD [24]. Not convinced that the coverage here is enough to meet WP:BASIC or NMUSIC. The articles by the Rolling Stones India and The Hindu do deal directly with the subject but it's written in a Q&A style that reads like paid publicity. Rolling Stones refers to his debut album as "critically acclaimed" but there's no evidence that it has charted or won any awards, and I can't find any other reviews of the album from reliable sources. KH-1 (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent reliable sources to establish notability hence failing GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 13:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as The Hindi source here also includes an album review so he seems to be marginally notable at this stage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 22:42, 19 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) 01:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom.--Ankit (Talk with me) 21:23, 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. Issues with promotional language can be dealt with through the editing process. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Charity Evaluators[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable and promotional for the organization and its work. A list of whivh this private organization considers top rated charities is not encyclopedic content. This is a restored excerpt for an earlier draft deleted as promotional paid editing at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Riceissa/Animal Charity Evaluators. It consides of the ratings, a promotional introduction, though much less of the surrounding fluff. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with discussion in Givewell 2013, Wrenn 2015 and Garrett 2018. If you want more sources, someone listed a bunch at Talk:Animal Charity Evaluators#Notability tag. There was indeed quite a bit of WP:PUFFERY which I just deleted. As per WP:DEL-CONTENT, problems like puffery aren't usually deletion reasons: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. I wasn't sure about removing their charity recommendations. After all, they are a rating organisation, so it seems potentially relevant to say what their ratings are. What was your reasoning, DGG? Trimton (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GNG seems well-established based on the convenient list of sources on the talk page. We shouldn't delete based on concerns about puffery or previous versions of the article. For what it's worth, I actually think the article should be expanded. It looks like there's a lot of useful information in those sources and the Evaluators' website. Jmill1806 (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This one seems a clear Keep, if for nothing else (and there are many good sources) the promotion and support of Peter Singer, worth his weight in endangered-animal fur in the animal rights movement. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- can I possibly be understanding this right? Your suggestion is to keep this article because it helps promote a famous scientist? DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you have turned my comment on its head, Peter Singer promotes and supports this group. In addition to "and there are many good sources". Randy Kryn (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - thanks for explaining Randy Kryn, but I think it still doesn't count. promotion and support of by Peter Singer alone doesn't contribute to notability. Significant coverage by Peter Singer would do so as per GNG, if he was independent of ACE. He isn't, since he's on the board. Or did he cover ACE significantly before he joined their board? That would count, as far as I know. Trimton (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote about the group in his 2015 book The Most Good You Can Do, which I'd take as a good faith acknowledgement of the group's notability. Don't know when he joined the board, but his inclusion, before or after his book, would seem to help ACE more than promoting Singer and it certainly wouldn't be his main priority or intent in going about doing his own work. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Singer is on their board since at least October 26, 2014 according to board meeting minutes. His later writings cannot contribute to establishing notability, I think, since he isn't what GNG calls independent. Trimton (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The topic already meets GNC, as outlined in the discussion, and the page already has good sourcing. Singer's involvement, which is not the central point of this AfD, is just icing on the cake. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that 🍰 Trimton (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this organization meets the WP:GNG criteria for inclusion. I previously provided a [list of multiple independent reliable significant sources] on the talk page. This at least merits a presumption of suitability for a stand-alone article.

Separately, you mention that the current page is a restored excerpt of [User:Riceissa/Animal_Charity_Evaluators], which was written by a self-disclosed paid editor six years ago. (They were paid by an overly eager activist, ‘not’ by ACE or anyone affiliated with ACE.) However, it is not true that the current content is an excerpt from there; you can see for yourself by comparing | Riceissa’s October 2015 content to the current version of the page.

In general, articles that merit inclusion by WP:GNG should be improved when they lack significant encyclopedic content, not deleted. There's plenty that ACE does which is encyclopedic, yet is not mentioned in this article at all. Unfortunately, because I have a WP:COI, I limit myself solely to meta and talk page comments like this one, and so I can’t personally help to make the content of the page better. Regardless, the page should certainly not be deleted, due to it meeting all criteria of WP:GNG. — Eric Herboso 16:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see means of evaluating the effectiveness of Animal Charity Evaluators in light of the broader tent of Effective Altruism, which Peter Singer has touted. MaynardClark (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 27 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)} 07:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Added this discussion to the WikiProject Animal rights talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:02, 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 17:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Druglawed[edit]

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

Non-notable documentary film. Does not meet WP:GNG, nor WP:NF. Most sources fail independence, or relate to the (non-notable) director’s criminal charges, the remainder fail significant coverage requirements. The film was not reviewed, nor distributed nationally (in New Zealand) nor internationally. The few festivals it went to were niche-interest (cannabis), and it has failed to prove historically important. The film does feature notable persons in interview, but these interviews alone do not confer notability.

Some of us are concerned that the article may have been pushed for promotional reasons, but this is very much secondary to the film’s simple lack of notability. — HTGS (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page has been deleted before, but someone lied about its noteworthiness to get it undeleted. I tried to find sources to keep it up (because I like the film) but couldn't. It fails WP:GNG. Nexus000 (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Nexus000 (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Me and HTGS had a discussion on this before the AfD was proposed. You can read it here. Nexus000 (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either (self-)promotional or extensive COI. Fails SIGCOV. 2 citations about the director, a press release and an article which is essentially a promotion for the doco. Additionally IMDB is not reliable as anyone can edit it, including those involved, and it would not surprise me in the least if this was the case here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As worthy as the doco might be, it’s simply not notable. Schwede 66 17:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) EpicPupper 17:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-letter second-level domain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet GNG. EpicPupper 00:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 00:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 00:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG per the significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable, secondary sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Tim Bradshaw (2 October 2011). "Single-letter domain names fetch average of £39,000". The Financial Times. Retrieved 27 April 2021.
^ Keith Axline (29 November 2005). "VOIP Crisis, Can't Call 911". Wired. Condé Nast. Retrieved 27 April 2021.
^ Susan B. Shor (29 November 2005). "ICANN May Release Single-Letter Domain Names". technewsworld.com. Retrieved 27 April 2021.
^ Associated Press (28 November 2005). "Single-Letter Domains Coming Soon". CBS News. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per SailingInABathTub Trimton (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources found by SailingInABathTub. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 00:13, 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.

[1] Anadiotis, George. "Chainlink launches Mainnet to get data in and out of Ethereum smart contracts". ZDNet.

[2] Anadiotis, George. "Chainlink 2.0 brings off-chain compute to blockchain oracles, promotes adoption of hybrid smart contracts". ZDNet.

[3] "'Link Marines' Are Making an Obscure Cryptocurrency Red Hot". Bloomberg.com. 17 August 2020.

[4] Josh Constine (8 December 2017). "Meet 'Genies,' the lifelike personalized avatars that reenact news". Techcrunch. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

[5] Chris Gardner (10 May 2019). "Now Celebrity Avatars Can Hire Their Own Agents". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

[6] Dean Takahashi (20 October 2020). "Genies will let consumers create their own 3D avatars with Giphy and Gucci". VentureBeat. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

[7] Sophie Alexander (19 November 2018). "Genies Uses Famous Athletes, and Their Money, to Take On Bitmoji". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

[8] Emma Kwan (20 March 2019). "Mountain View High grads launch popular Genies avatar app". Los Altos Town Crier. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

[9] Alex Mitchley (25 February 2020). "Tshwane school attack: Father shot and critically wounded, wife and son assaulted". News24. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

[10] Andile Sicetsha (25 February 2020). "Tshwane Muslim School attack: Three injured in shooting incident". The South African. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

[11] Hayden J. Bellenoit (2017). The Formation of the Colonial State in India: Scribes, Paper and Taxes 1760-1860. Taylor & Francis. p. 178. ISBN 1134494297. Retrieved 19 April 2021.

[12] Edmund Harry Thompson (1919). Judging Beef Cattle. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

[13] Walter Whittier Swett; R. R. Graves (1941). Judging Dairy Cattle on the Basis of Type and Records of Production. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

[14] William Henry Black (1941). Judging Beef Cattle. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

[15] Amer Benjamin Nystrom (1945). Dairy Cattle Judging. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

[16] George W. Trimberger (1983). Dairy Cattle Judging Techniques. Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-0131963528.

[17] Adam Leland Beam. Breeds of Dairy Cattle and Theory of Judging. Forgotten Books. ISBN 978-0265848173.

[18] Tim Bradshaw (2 October 2011). "Single-letter domain names fetch average of £39,000". The Financial Times. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

[19] Keith Axline (29 November 2005). "VOIP Crisis, Can't Call 911". Wired. Condé Nast. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

[20] Susan B. Shor (29 November 2005). "ICANN May Release Single-Letter Domain Names". technewsworld.com. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

[21] Associated Press (28 November 2005). "Single-Letter Domains Coming Soon". CBS News. Retrieved 27 April 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]