Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 27 April 29 >

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.  JGHowes  talk 01:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Nurmagomedov[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights in top tier promotion (UFC/Invicta) and fails GNG for the fights are routine reports. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm the author. I agree there is a failure on part of WP:NMMA and that the subject is two fights short in Bellator to meet the requirements. Nevertheless, I think he just might be scraping the surface of notability as per WP:GNG when complemented with the coverage received in reliable Russian media sources, much of which I must admit is based on his relationship with Khabib. If the vote swings towards deletion, I'd recommend it to be substituted by Draftify instead. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is not by association and the subject would not able to meet the notability for a long time (years) as he is fighting in Bellator, so ratifying serves no purpose. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't understand. If he is two fights short in Bellator to satisfy WP:NMMA, how would that mean a long time wait? That could happen in a span of a single year, even. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oh wait, WP:NMMA says "Bellator Fighting Championships (Top Tier: 2009 through 2015)". It all makes sense now. Could you kindly move the article to my sandbox as I could find use for its template if I find notable MMA fighters in the future? Consider this a formal approval to close the AfD from the author, if such a request exists by nature. Thanks. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nearlyevil665. I have copied the content to your sandbox - see User:Nearlyevil665/sandbox. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nearlyevil665. No worries. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For what's it worth, there is also coverage by the Insider and the BBC, neither of which seems to be a routine report. I have added those into the article, just in case. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The BBC article is an interview piece of the subject and thus it is not independent soruce. The Insider, half of the article is also interview piece the subject is mentioned in 2 short paragraphs which does not meets significant coverage in depth of the subject. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Cassiopeia: MMA is not my area of interest. So consider me an intruder here. But your statement "The BBC article is an interview piece of the subject and thus it is not independent soruce." caught my attention. Could you please elaborate a little on this. I mean I do not understand how the BBC piece is "not [an] independent source" i.e., "independent of the subject" of this article. Is this because the piece is an interview? Best. Mosesheron (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mosesheron Thank you for the question. When a source content is derived from and interview with the subject/subject associate, that make the source not independent because the info/content comes from the subject themselves. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Cassiopeia: I still do not get your point. Perhaps a failure on my part. But I mean if "a source content is derived from [an] interview with the subject/subject associate", that may not be considered WP:SECONDARY as far as the "content" coming from that source is concerned. But how does that frustrate WP:SIGCOV and make the source "not independent"? Mosesheron (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mosesheron Primary sources are those of first-hand information on a topic, creative texts, experiment results, historical documents and etc. Independent sources /third party sources are those without of any direct influence with the subjects involved/view. A source is considered secondary if it contains an analysis, synthesis, discussion, evaluation etc. of primary sources. SIGCOV "significant coverage - subject is covered by sources in length and in details and not passing mentioned. The above BBC source is reliable but not independent. This is a AfD discussion. I think we would leave the discussion of type of sources discussion here. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:GNG. I'll dissent from the nominator's opinion and say that the subject does meet WP:GNG as he has been covered in various secondary, independent, reliable sources as can be verified by a simple google search (the standard method).
Secondly, there's a thing about the corresponding criterions that is going under the radar- passing WP:NMMA can validate a fighter notable but its not vice-versa, i.e. failing the aforementioned criteria "is not the last word on the notability of a subject" and thus it cannot prove Usman non-notable. P.S. it should be noted that WP:GNG has a slightly higher importance than any other criterions which comes naturally from it being a set of "general guideline". Generally, we don't find subjects that pass GNG and not SSG because passing GNG demands a little more. So this looks pretty clear to me- it should be kept.
Please note that i haven't voted it a strong keep so there must be some scope of deletion based on any factor like content verifiability. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 17:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I appreciate your contribution to this discussion I reverted your latest edit to the article as the website linked looked like providing pirated recordings of UFC and Bellator fights. If I'm wrong please feel free to put those back in, but I had to act as per WP:BOLD. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah maybe. My only motive was to provide a source that referenced the time of the third fight. I think that's clear now. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 23:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pesticide1110 To pass GNG content of the subject need to have significant coverage by independent, reliable sroueces where by the source talk about the subject in depth and in details and not passing mentioned and no routine sport coverage. The link you provide, the sources are eidther, not independent (interview piece), passing mentioned, or sport routine couverage, thus it fails the requirements to have a standalone article. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is clear he fails to meet WP:NMMA, so the question is whether or not he meets WP:GNG. I'll start by looking at the 5 current sources in the article. All of them refer to his appearance at Bellator 255, so that seems to be WP:ONEEVENT. Most of the articles focus as much on Kahbib as Usman, but WP:NOTINHERITED. The Insider article is part interview, part glowing comments from Bellator's boss, and partly about Usman's family--definitely not significant independent coverage. It also seems to be standard pre-fight reporting/hype. The BBC article is mainly an interview and therefore not independent or reliably sourced. The third source is an MMA database. The fourth and fifth are routine sports reporting of results for the same fight. I see nothing that shows WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable MMA fighter. Riteboke (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Riteboke He is not a notable fighter. Since you stated keep, pls explain which Wikipedia notability guidelines which the subject pass as notable fighter as AfD required? instead just stating he is. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should look at WP:GOOGLEHITS to see that the number of google hits has no bearing on WP notablility. The fact that you edited 140 AfD discussions in a 24 hour period leads me to believe you didn't put much effort into your research on any of those topics. In addition, those make up a large number of your edits and I would suggest you start more slowly and familiarize with WP criteria such as WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:N, etc. WP:NOTAVOTE explains that AfD discussions are passed on WP based arguments and not just votes. Papaursa (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Riteboke That is not Wikipedia notability guidelines for Wikipedia does not work this way. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The editors's who voted as keep almost fails to explain under which of the notability guidelines does the subject pass as a notable fighter. So relisting once again to generate more consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 23:41, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Anderton (RAF officer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unremarkable pilot. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:36, 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.  JGHowes  talk 01:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danyal bey Hallajov[edit]

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

The mentions in the Nəzirli book appear to not be in-depth enough, and the rest are simple mentions. Fails WP:GNG. WP:NSOLDIER has been deprecated, so was not considered. Onel5969 TT me 12:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:46, 16 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? 23:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While there are more refences on the Ru article they are all minor mentions. The are no claims in the article that meet WP:GNG nor are any reference that meet it found. Jeepday (talk) 18:15, 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 snow deleted. Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chills (YouTuber). DrKay (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chills (entertainer)[edit]

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

Non notable internet celebrity who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up nothing of substance. They are a rapper but do not satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 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. Missvain (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uytae Lee[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a journalist, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. The overwhelming majority of the footnotes are just his own bylined work metaverifying its own existence on YouTube or media outlets he produced work for -- but as always, the notability test for a journalist is not just the ability to use his own work as circular verification that his own work exists, and instead requires the ability to use sources where he's been the subject of media coverage created by other people, to establish that his work has been externally validated as significant. But the most GNG-worthy sources here (The Tyee and CTV Atlantic) both just glancingly namecheck his existence within coverage of other things, and the only source that's about him in any non-trivial sense is a 113-word blurb in a listicle in a very minor magazine, none of which adds up to enough coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG. As usual, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative where people are automatically entitled to have articles just because they exist -- nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Uytae Lee from having to have a much stronger notability claim, and much better sourcing for it, than anything shown here. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I think it would be a mistake to delete this article, I was inspired to write this after watching an interview with him so maybe I didn't convey enough things, I didn't want it to sound promotional. He's more of an advocate than a journalist as all of his work is editorialized opinion pieces. He does things on contract as outlined in this interview: on another Channel. He's a pioneer with the format and the highest profile Canadian urban planner on YouTube. As the founder of PLANifax which is an established and staffed educational non-profit [1] he has had a lasting impact beyond his regularly ongoing advocacy and journalism work. --TheJoyMonger (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, you can never use YouTube content as "evidence" of notability at all — notability requires a certain specific type of reliable source coverage about him in a certain specific tier of high-quality media outlets, not just any web page you can find that has his name in it — and for another, notability also cannot be supported by Q&A interviews in which he's doing the talking, about himself or something else, in the first person. (Interviews can be sparingly used to source facts, but not as prima facie evidence of notability per se.) Notability requires real media outlets to be externally discussing and analyzing the significance of his work in the third person, and just asserting that he's "the highest profile" anything, or that his work "has had a lasting impact", doesn't count as a notability claim if you haven't used the correct kind of sourcing to demonstrate how those things are true. The problem is that as an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, there's nothing actually stopping any article from being filled entirely with lies and promotional braggadocio — so notability isn't measured by what the article says, it's measured by the quality and depth and reliability of the sources that the article does or doesn't use to support the things it says. Bearcat (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK it's been a bit of work but I've added in and reformatted around the two organizations he has founded as well as finding sources outside of the state broadcaster who contract him. Yes, I haven't used YouTube as a reference in the article for a reason. It's just everything he says in the video is backed by the public information I've found. TheJoyMonger (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you completely missed the point. The new sources you added still aren't media coverage about him, but the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with. For example, speaking on a panel at a film festival does not help to make him notable if your source for that panel is the film festival's own website about itself — it only helps to make him notable if a media outlet writes a news story about the panel to help establish why it might have been significant. No matter what he does or doesn't do, it's the same: the notability test is not passed by using primary sources to verify that he did the thing, it's passed by using journalistic coverage about the things he did to verify that his work has been independently seen as significant by people other than himself and the organizations he did stuff for. Bearcat (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't work for the Toronto International Film Festival, or the Tyee, or CTV, or this Argentinian radio station. It's literally journalistic coverage about what he did, what he does is make urbanism videos. I'm a volunteer trying to create my first article here about someone who is (in my field) genuinely influential and you've been so uncollaborative and frankly rude. In that way, that an anonymous person with moderator status gets to be. I get that you're making an argument, but I reject it. I think your dismissing valid sources and making it seem like the article pivots on Primary Sources, when they are simply there to illustrate that he makes videos about certain topics and has produced videos for major sources. I don't think that you would take anything short of a New York times article called "How Uytae Lee shook the foundations of Urbanism in Halifax" which, isn't the sort of coverage that a Canadian gets. We just don't have that many news organizations, if you create organizations that partner with news outlets, you're not going to get much beyond primary sources in Canada. I'm just going to go through and setup internet archive links so that if you delete my work, at least when it gets re-created again some day there will be something to work off of. TheJoyMonger (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there isn't a Toronto International Film Festival citation present in the article at all — there's a citation to Reel Asian, which isn't the same thing. But regardless, content self-published by film festivals to their own websites does not count as notability-supporting coverage — people are not automatically notable just because they spoke at a film festival discussion panel sourced to that film festival's own self-published calendar listing of that panel, if journalistic coverage about that panel cannot be shown to establish the panel's significance.
Secondly, that Argentinian radio station link is not coverage about Uytae Lee, it just briefly namechecks Uytae Lee as a giver of soundbite in an article about something else — which is exactly the same reason why the Tyee and CTV sources aren't helping either. So I'd recommend that you learn the difference between coverage about a person, and coverage that mentions a person in the process of being fundamentally about something else. The first kind helps to support notability; the second kind does not.
Thirdly, Canada does not have a dearth of media outlets that can be used to support notability, such that we would need to create special Canadian-specific carve-outs from our rules about what is or isn't reliable or notability-supporting sourcing — we've got at least ten television networks (hint: don't forget to count the French ones) that produce news programming, two national talk radio networks that produce news programming, literally hundreds of reliable and widely distributed newspapers and magazines, and likely millions of published non-fiction books. So no, Canada doesn't need any special dispensation to use bad sources as support for notability, because "but we don't have any real media up here" is not even remotely true.
And finally, "collaboration" does not mean that I have to let you just do anything you want and cite any weaksauce sources you want, or that I'm shirking my responsibilities as a Wikipedian just because I'm not telling you the things you want to hear. We have rules about what is or isn't notability-building sourcing, and telling you that some sources aren't acceptable is neither "uncollaborative" nor "rude". Bearcat (talk) 12:23, 25 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 22:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to have won any Canadian awards or have many mentions in media of note, I would say he doesn't meet the criteria. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 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.  JGHowes  talk 01:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomotsugu Nakamura[edit]

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

fails notability, not finding anything source-wise to support inclusion. Acousmana 21:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acousmana 21:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Taheri (painter)[edit]

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

Non-notable painter. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that he meets any notability guideline.--- Possibly (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: COI, bad English, no signs of notability --SalomonSalmon (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Page created by a SPA, no coverage in reliable independent sources that demonstrate that the subject is notable. --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Willa Was Here as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did Ya' Understand That[edit]

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

I do not believe this article meets WP:NSONG. I could not find significant coverage on this song. The coverage that I found was limited to album reviews and articles about its 9/11 release date, but I do not think that is significant enough coverage for a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete': Article itself admits that the song was not successful. There is nothing notable about this song except for the fact that it was released on 9/11, which has no relation to the song whatsoever. ColinBear (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the parent album, Willa Was Here, in case anyone uses the title as a search term. The song actually has some media coverage, but only in the form of the singer's complaints about how it was a flop. That does not equate to notability for the song itself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:42, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hossain High School[edit]

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

Non Notable school fails to pass WP:NCORP. I thought to improve this page but cant find sources. Sonofstar (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirecting to Nandail Upazila is an option, but a poor one unless we want its education section to be dominated by a list of 36 non-notable secondary schools. If an article existed about the next smaller administrative unit, Jahangirpur Union, I could see redirecting there. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Does not show anything that distinguishes it from other schools, fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 12:40, 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.  JGHowes  talk 01:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Hsing-ching[edit]

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

Fluff and promotion, unsourced, and written by SPAs [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. A WP:BEFORE shows no significant coverage in English (just a few citations in the South. China Morning Post), or - from what I could find and translate - in Chinese (see also WP:ONUS). JBchrch (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JBchrch (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. JBchrch (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. JBchrch (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. jp×g 09:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jp×g 09:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG; the phrase in the lede, "regarded as very influential" is the first of many fluffy pink warning signs. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "南方朔" [Nanfang Shuo]. Radio Taiwan International (in Chinese). 2020-05-18. Archived from the original on 2021-04-24. Retrieved 2021-04-23.

      From Google Translate: "Nanfang Shuo is a pseudonym. He is a well-known columnist from a journalist background, so that later everyone only knows the pseudonym Nanfang Shuo, not many people know his real name. His most representative is that he left quite a few comments and published books during the period of martial law, and after he founded "New News" when he was away from middle school, many reporters also called him a "master.""

      The article further notes, "During such a long period of time during the martial law, Nanfang Shuo slowly established a Taiwanese newspaper's speech system step by step. Before Nanfang Shuo, Taiwanese newspapers were mainly composed of scholars and experts to write editorials or columns, but Nan Shuo's generation of reporters trained by Taiwanese began to think that important statements in newspapers should be written by the author who knows the development of news and current affairs best."

    2. "南方朔：很多政治人物没有中心思想" [Nanfang Shuo: Many politicians have no central ideas]. The Time Weekly (in Chinese). 2009. Archived from the original on 2021-04-24. Retrieved 2021-04-23.

      From Google Translate: "Born into a poor family, Nanfang Shuokao University Times reported to the Forestry Department of National Taiwan University. He explained the choice of this major:. ... After forty years old, Nanfang Shuo and his friends founded the "New News" magazine. At the time of social changes in Taiwan, both the general public and the press themselves are looking forward to the atmosphere of freedom and openness. "New News" was born at the right time. At its peak, the circulation reached more than 30,000 copies, but there were not many advertisements, and the business mainly relied on circulation. Nanfang Shuo became a columnist from a journalist. In 2005, Nanfang Shuo left "New News"."

    3. 曾伶俐 (2010-01-07). "南方朔 站在權力對立面" [Nanfang Shuo stands on the opposite of power] (in Chinese). Sina Corp. Archived from the original on 2021-04-24. Retrieved 2021-04-23.

      From Google Translate: "This is Nanfang Shuo, whose real name is Wang Xingqing, is a prolific journalist who is known as the "most diligent folk scholar" by reading a lot of politics, economy, and society without a teacher. He considers himself ordinary, but only exerts the instinct of an intellectual and speaks on the opposite side of power, but his speech often turns into a shocking education for national leaders. He stands on the opposite of power and speaks as a shocking education for politicians  He once said bluntly, "Chen Shui-bian should go to a mental hospital instead of a prison," "Chen Shui-bian is laundering money, and the green camp is all accomplices", "Taiwan is no longer a blue and a green country, and has become a class with and without. A two-state society"."

      "台湾资深新闻人南方朔给政客震撼教育" [Taiwan's veteran journalist Nanfang Shuo shocks education for politicians] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. 2010-01-20. Archived from the original on 2021-04-24. Retrieved 2021-04-23.

      From Google Translate in article that discusses and excerps from the same article, "What kind of person is Nan Shuo, who is often valued by the core of power on the island, and who always stands opposite the power with a cold eyebrow? Article 337 of Taiwan's "Financial Information" magazine made an introduction.  The article is excerpted as follows:".

    4. 林芯瑩 (2014-07-10). "時代良心重建社會價值 南方朔展現讀書人風骨" [The conscience of the times rebuilds social values]. Taiwan News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-04-24. Retrieved 2021-04-23.

      From Google Translate: "Nanfang Shuo, respected as a master in the literary and art world, is hailed as "the most diligent folk scholar." ... He had already applied for an American university scholarship but refused to go abroad when diplomatic relations were broken between China and the United States. . Over the years, Nanfang Shuo has created a large number of literary reviews and political theories, and is also one of the founders of "New News" weekly."

    5. "台湾知名作家南方朔获台湾诗选年度诗奖" [Nanfang Shuo, a well-known Taiwanese writer, won the Annual Poem Award]. zh:中国台湾网 (in Chinese). Sina Corp. 2006-02-17. Archived from the original on 2021-04-24. Retrieved 2021-04-23.

      From Google Translate: "According to Taiwan media reports, when Nanfang Shuo was awarded the prize, he said that he wrote poems since junior high school. His favorite style is "Roman Empire Style", which means that he should include poems in his articles. Therefore, when he writes comments, he often includes poems in his articles. ... Nanfang Shuo, whose real name is Wang Xingqing, is a Taiwanese writer, poet, critic and journalist. Graduated from the Forestry Department of Chinese Culture College (now Chinese Culture University), Master of Forestry Research Institute of National Taiwan University, and completed the doctoral program of the Institute of Industrial Planning of China Culture University (now discontinued)."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wang Hsing-ching (simplified Chinese: 王杏庆; traditional Chinese: 王杏慶; pinyin: Wáng Xìngqìng, who has a pseudonym of Nanfang Shuo (南方朔, Nánfāng Shuò), to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Passes GNG per the sources provided by Cunard. Best, VocalIndia (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 05:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Don's[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable . Every reference is either a mere notice, or a promotional interview such as ref.2, or straight PR. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any neutrality issues with the article itself. Sources are enthusiastic but that does not necessarily make them promotional - they've opened 27 locations in 5 years so customers seem to be as enthusiastic as the press. WP:INTERVIEW claim is not solid as articles with interview content also contain significant background information. ~Kvng (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP is the appropriate guideline - requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. WP:INTERVIEW is an essay and ORGIND is a guidelines. Taking a look at the references:
    • This from Options opens with an admission that the journalist has known the CEO for about 20 years and "there could be some amount of bias". It is also based almost entirely on an interview. Fails WP:ORGIND as neither the source nor the content qualify as "Independent Content".
    • This from The Star is a report on the opening of an Uncle Don outlet, mentioning the "football legends" who attended and regurgitating quotes provided by the co-founder/CEO. Fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
    • This corporate profile is a PRIMARY source as per here, fails ORGIND
    • This from Malay Mail discusses the opening of three new branches during Covid19, entirely based on material provided by the CEO as can be seen by the various paragraphs starting with "According to founder..." or "He told Malay Mail", "Ong said", etc, as well as the numerous quotations, fails ORGIND
    • This from Vulcan Post is based entirely on an interview with the CEO as confirmed in the article, fails ORGIND
    • World Of Buzz is based on an "Official Statement" from the company, fails ORGIND
    • Loopme is a review of one of the restaurants and contains zero information about the corporation (the topic of this article), fails CORPDEPTH
    • This from Were2LifestyleMagazine looks like a small obscure blog-style website with no information on editorial policies or named authors, it is also self-described as a blog, fails WP:RS
    • The Star is two short paragraphs which mentions the topic company in a future hopeful context, fails CORPDEPTH
    • The Star is based on a company statement with no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
    • This by The Star is based entirely on a filing with the stock exchange with no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
    • This from The Brand Laureate is copied from the Corporate Profile and other company marketing literature, fails ORGIND
None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find rely entirely on the company's "echo chamber" of information and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The restaurant chain is quite famous in Kuala Lumpur and throughout the Malaysia. I admit, added news sources are locally published media and contributors are local Malaysian. Also, the news media and its contributors are independent. I believe the company passes the "Primary criteria" of Notability (organizations and companies) and news sources "Meet the standard for being a reliable source". If you want to revamp the page, that would be very helpful. Lily Li Foung (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Lily Li Foung, I note you have declared an interest in this company on your User Page but nevertheless, in order for a topic to be notable, there must be references and news sources that meet WP:NCORP requirements. You've said there are sources in your !vote comment above but can you link to any such reference or news source please? HighKing++ 11:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Tan, Jocelyn (2020-12-18). "With 27 Outlets In 5 Years, Uncle Don's Now Plans To Franchise The Biz & Expand Nationwide: Uncle Don's is a Malaysian restaurant that has now launched its own delivery app and plans to franchise the brand for expansion". Vulcan Post. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-04-26.

      The article provides commentary about the restaurant chain: "Often when thinking about a restaurant to meet up with friends at for an overdue catch-up session, a suggestion that always comes up is Uncle Don’s. It’s mainly due to my friends’ shared fondness of its affordability and wide range of menu items that include beverages, whether boozy or not. The restaurant and bar brand is no doubt a favourite for many other Malaysians, considering the fact that it only started in 2015 yet already has 27 outlets to date."

      The article discusses Uncle Don's creation of "its own delivery app to cut out the middleman due to high commissions". The article provides analysis of the experience, "I tried the app out myself and found that it had a smooth UX. But when it came to logistics, I got a call from Lalamove telling me that the restaurant didn’t even receive my order even though I’d already paid.  ... Pending bug fixes aside, having to download a new app for a single F&B brand, fill in personal details about one’s contact, location, and credit card info into yet another app can be quite the turn-off for adoption. ... However, if they were to focus on only their own app, I would expect a decent uptake of users from their fanbase."

      The article includes quotes from people affiliated with the restaurant, but there is substantial independent research and analysis to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage.

    2. Tan, Yvonne (2019-12-14). "Uncle Don's ready to list". The Star. Retrieved 2021-04-26 – via PressReader.

      The article provides commentary about the restaurant chain: "Uncle Don's, which is known for its affordable drinks and pub-like food like grilled chicken chop, plans to go public either via a reverse takeover (RTO) route or a direct sale of its share. The article provides detailed reporting about the company including noting that it has 18 locations, its listing will assist it in paying for more locations including internationally, that the company will have 15 more locations including two in Singapore, that two of the locations are owned by Asia Poly through a "joint-venture" with Uncle Don's Holdings, that if the listing happens, it will be part of a string of "other consumer-driven companies" that will be going public, that the company has an annual revenue of Rm 50 million. This meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage.

    3. Singh, Sarban (2020-08-15). "Don of a new day". The Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-04-26.

      The article includes quotes from people affiliated with the restaurant, but there is substantial independent reporting and analysis to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage. The article provides analysis of the restaurant chain: "Uncle Don’s is popular among patrons who get to choose from a wide range of affordably-priced fusion, Western, Portuguese and Nyonya cuisine." The article includes independent reporting, "The first Uncle Don’s outlet was opened in SS2, Petaling Jaya in January 2016. It was the brainchild of Ong and his partner, Don Daniel Theseira, a chef of almost 40 years. Together they coined the “Dine Like A Don Every day” tag line which promotes the brand’s spirit of affordable dining. Since its opening, the chain has bagged several awards including one for best restaurant brand."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Uncle Don's to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which requires a stricter examination of references to establish notability than vanilla GNG referred to by Cunard above. Most importantly, each reference must meet WP:ORGIND *and* WP:CORPDEPTH. All three of the references quoted above by Cunard fail NCORP (as noted earlier above).
  • The Vulcan Post reference. The extracts provided above are trivial and fail *both* ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. True, the journalist provides his opinion on the affordability and wide range of menu items available at the restaurant chain but this is trivial information and does not add to notability. Extracts plucked from the article show the journalist provides a personal opinion on the Uncle Don's app - but the article is not about the app, it is about the organization. The working of the App does not contribute to the notability of the organization. The most important feature though is that this article relies *entirely* on an interview with the founder, Ian Ong. It says it clearly in the article. Even if you are inclined to accept the trivial comments as meeting ORGIND (really, they don't), this reference fails CORPDEPTH as all the information is provided by the founder which is not considered by NCORP for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • The Star reference. Again, this article relies *entirely* on an interview with the founder and on an announcement by the company that it plans to go public. Similar personal opinions of the journalist are plucked from the article and if you are inclined to accept those comments as meeting ORGIND for the purposes of "Independent Content", the information is trivial and does not assist with establishing notability. In addition, *all* of the corporate information has been provided by the company or (as noted in the article) by anonymous "sources familiar with the proposed listing".
  • The final Star reference. This is probably the worst reference of the lot. True, the article "includes quotes from people affiliated with the restaurant" - but that should have been the giveaway. None are "unaffiliated" with the restaurant. The article is an advertorial and relies entirely on information provided by the company and fails ORGIND.
The stricter interpretation of sources that may be used to establish notability are per WP:NCORP requires in-depth information that isn't sourced to the company. None of these articles meet the requirement. HighKing++ 19:28, 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 redirect to Shark attack. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Bites[edit]

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

Lacks references, does not meet WP:GNG, and consists solely of original research. Y'know, like what it says in the article.

Article details a fruit snack produced by Betty Crocker. Shark Bites is a real product that exists and is apparently produced and sold by Betty Crocker to this day, but the only information I can find about it are online retail sites selling boxes of the stuff and a few "foods from your childhood that you can still buy" list articles from sources that I'm pretty sure aren't proper sources. The article apparently had more content that was gradually trimmed and eventually almost completely removed in 2016; the article hasn't been edited since, and the unreferenced template has been on the page since 2013. AdoTang (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Shark attack. I agree with the nominator that this snack does not seem to have sufficient notability for a standalone article, and my attempt at searching for sources didn't turn anything reasonable up. Since this is entirely unsourced and has content that is extremely dubious, e.g. It is unknown whether the White Shark is supposed to taste like one of the other flavors each time, or if it is a flavor of its own. I don't think it's suitable for merging. It is however a plausible search term for people looking for information on shark attacks. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shark attack: per IP. I'd suggest to merge if there were any sourced content, but as there is not, there isn't much to merge. IP makes a good point about this being a plausible search term for someone looking for more information on, say, what happens when a shark bites you. Kncny11 (shoot) 20:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shark attack for reasons above Mukedits (talk) 22:06, 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 Premiership of Boris Johnson. Consensus is against keeping this, but for covering it somewhere appropriate, which most people here seem to think is Premiership of Boris Johnson. That doesn't exclude mentioning in a COVID-related article also if editors want to do so. I can't give much weight to the BLP concerns because the arguments that this alleged statement by Johnson is reliably sourced haven't been rebutted. Sandstein 06:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let the bodies pile high[edit]

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

Not notable enough for a separate standalone article, fails WP:GNG. Possible merge to British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic or Boris Johnson.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Merge with British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic: Per WP:DIVERSE and WP:SENSATIONAL. The controversy itself is probably enough to merit mentioning somewhere, but not to have a stand-alone article, as most of the references appear to be parroting each other. Kncny11 (shoot) 21:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS policy: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". This article is about one comment that a country's political leader might have uttered. This sort of thing is reported all the time, then quickly fades away. There's nothing unusual about this one. Maybe it will become something of key importance in UK politics (if it does, it could be revived in some form, with a title that would have to be considered more carefully), but at the moment it's just another story. EddieHugh (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither verifiable (the only sources are word-of-mouth), nor necessarily true given he has denied it, including in the House. Also note WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEARTEST, the latter of which almost certainly will not pass. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, don't need a whole article on a quote that hasn't even been verified yet that there has been a mild level of discussion about. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You created it. Why do you not want it to remain? (Related if tangential question: why did you create it?) EddieHugh (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they have reconsidered. W. Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 10:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. We don't create a new article for every bit of sensationalised and unsubstantiated hearsay and tittle-tattle stirred up by disgruntled former advisors and supporters of opposition parties - do we? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Smartse: The comment surfaced in a tabloid, and its only evidence is tabloid-based. The BBC/Sky saying "the Daily Mail said" doesn't make them independent in their own right, they are simply re-reporting a WP:TABLOID and WP:DAILYMAIL story. Spa-Franks (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely why this has BLP issues. If a given source is unreliable, then it shouldn't be relied on. If a reliable source reports on a topic by saying "per [unreliable source]", then that is no different. If this can be verified by WP:RS, then a short sentence on Premiership of Boris Johnson or another related article would be the most appropriate. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 13:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spa-Franks and JackFromWisconsin:While it may have originated in the Daily Mail, it has been corroborated by other reliable sources - not simply then repeating what the Daily Mail reported. See this for example from the New Yorker: The newspaper’s reporting, which was corroborated by the BBC, ITV News, and other British media. SmartSE (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge relevant parts to appropriate articles. LK (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete tabloid rumours and gossip clearly do not pass the notability threshold for an independent article. --RaviC (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The remark is corroborated by BBC and ITV and reported globally. Premiership of Boris Johnson says "In April 2021 Johnson denied allegations made by the Daily Mail that he had said that he would rather have seen "bodies pile high in their thousands" than approve a third lockdown." Suggest "..Daily Mail and others" linking to refs on the page under discussion. Date of comment to be added.Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The remark may have been reported by the Daily Mail first, but in this ITV News article Robert Peston says that more two witnesses, who both insist that they didn't brief the Daily Mail, have corrobated the Daily Mail's account, suggesting at least three sources and (to me) that this isn't just Daily Mail gossip. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I might be missing something, but I believe that the remark passes WP:GNG. The barrier is actually lower than some of the comments above might seem to suggest for significant coverage: ""[s]ignificant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Pretty much every UK news source has written at least one article about it (for example, BBC News has this article, this article, this shorter article, this shorter article and this article which is at least one third focused on the comment and as can be seen by this search result, the comment has not been limited to that selection of articles in the BBC's coverage) and so it is clear that it passes that precondition; while no book has been written about the comment, it's plainly not just a trivial footnote like the Bill Clinton example in WP:GNG. It's also worth noting that notability is not temporary, as per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Additionally, its overwhelming coverage combined with Peston's article cited above also make it clear to me that the remark is reliable, independent of the subject and, finally, that there are multiple secondary sources. Whether the remark warrants its own page is something that I'm still not sure about, but I wanted to put forward the argument that it does pass WP:GNG. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You missed out "Presumed", which is part of GNG. It has a link to WP:NOT, part of which is WP:NOTNEWS, which states: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". There's lots more there on why including what a famous person says isn't worthwhile (even as part of an article – not just as an article topic). So, no, it doesn't meet all of GNG. EddieHugh (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did miss out presumed. That's because I was only considering WP:GNG by itself and, perhaps foolishly, not all of GNG, as you point out, if that makes sense. Looking at at WP:NOTNEWS (which I agree applies), I can see how the remark might contravene news reports (at present, it's difficult to see what long term impact this comment might have, in comparison to, say, bigotgate), though not the other three points. I also can't see where it says that including what a famous person says isn't worthwhile? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:07, 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. Missvain (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holyman Undercover[edit]

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

Sources are one press release and two namechecks. The usual sites have no professional reviews of this movie. I don't think even God Awful Movies has reviewed it. In the 120 or so unique Google hits, I did not find a single usable RS that is actually about this movie. It exists, it's bad, it's almost universally ignored, and that's about all you can say. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I had the same issue in regards to searching it up on Google. I even gave it a shot by searching this movie on Google Scholar. Regards. JayzBox (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFILM CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:57, 7 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender Restroom[edit]

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

Written like an essay, unclear if this should be a standalone article, would probably be better getting deleted or merged with Bathroom bill if anything valuable can be salvaged from this article. nearlyevil665 17:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 17:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic is definitely notable, and I could see an article being made by a competent editor. Unfortunately, this article is an essay, and we don't have essays on WP. Additionally, it's a very poorly written essay, leading me to believe we need to TNT the article so it can be started from scratch. If someone wants to put in the work to majorly overhaul this article, I'd be willing to reconsider my !vote. Ping me for discussion, please. --Kbabej (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I struck my comment above about this standalone topic being notable. I wasn’t thinking of Unisex public toilet, which covers what is important. —Kbabej (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not an essay. Pretty much everything mentioned in this article is already discussed at Bathroom bill or Unisex public toilet. Kncny11 (shoot) 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a WP:COATRACK essay, and we already have Unisex public toilet. Nate • (chatter) 22:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, also a clear WP:CFORK of the other articles which cover these matters. Crossroads -talk- 23:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is clear this is an essay. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I would strongly suggest removing this article. While I have no reason to believe this was the author's intent, the final version is worded in a way that I fear it will be quite painful for many trans and non-binary users. Furthermore, there are numerous unsubstantiated statements that reiterate or resonate with common transphobic tropes. NerdOfAllTrades42 (talk) 02:54, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tasker[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only 1 source cited 3 times for a small handful of facts. There's nothing that satisfies for this article's need to exist. -- Tytrox (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I've decided to withdraw the nomination. Perhaps I should've brought it up as a discussion on the Talk page first, but hindsight gets the best of me sometimes. I felt I had a reasonable understanding on how my nomination was justified, but it appears there's more than I thought. Thank you everyone for your input. -- Tytrox (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Passes both criteria #C1 (well-cited publications) and #C3 (fellow of a major society for which this is a significant honor) of WP:PROF. Speedy because, to paraphrase User:Cupper52, we have no evidence that the nominator or first commentator even tried to evaluate this according to the correct notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets NPROF#3 as IEEE fellow and NRPROF#1 due to citation record.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NPROF C1 and C3. It'd be good to have sources outside of Cardiff U's newsletter for his main honors, but as usual, WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Meets WP:PROF#C1 due to his citation record and WP:PROF#C3 for being an IEEE Fellow, as easily verified through their website if desired. (The article currently gives two different dates for this; apparently, he was part of the Fellows class for 2015, and this was announced the previous November.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Passes both criteria #C1 (well-cited publications) and #C3 (fellow of a major society for which this is a significant honor) of WP:PROF. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nom has withdrawn the nomination, so an admin should close it. -Cupper52Discuss! 10:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cupper52, IIRC the rules, you'd need to strike your delete vote first. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:22, 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. Randykitty (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekow Smith-Asante[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with no multiple reliable secondary sources to attest to their notability. nearlyevil665 20:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no claim of notability made in the article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject in article does meet notability at least WP:BIO, unless all notable sources from Ghana should not be regarded as reliable sources, which would not sound right. The article demonstrates meeting the notability tag, but article needs to be improved. Subject from the basic research done is a notable actor in Ghana and West Africa. Ampimd (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails multiple reliable secondary, fails WP:NACTOR CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a review of reliable secondary sources and the subject passes. Missvain (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the following analysis Smith-Asante does not meet either NACTOR nor GNG. The reliability of some of the sources cited is shockingly poor and causes concerns not just for establishing notability per 42 but also verifying the article's content, especially given that it is a BLP. SITH (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.ghgossip.com/marriage-is-overhyped-ekow-smith-asante/ Yes No reason to suspect not. No "Gossip" is in the title of the publication. This is like referencing a redtop. ~ Ehh, of his views, yes. Of his work, no. ✘ No
http://lucky-wap-ams.op-mobile.opera.com/newsDetail/t6e1fa878200626en_ug?category=entertainment&time=6+days+ago&uid=84b906123b2bcb388fba1530a683370f&country=ug&language=en&page=11 ? Absolutely radioactive-looking URL, my firewall is saying don't visit. ? Absolutely radioactive-looking URL, my firewall is saying don't visit. ? Absolutely radioactive-looking URL, my firewall is saying don't visit. ? Unknown
https://www.pulse.com.gh/entertainment/celebrities/social-media-is-more-dangerous-than-jesus-christ-ekow-smith-asante-goofs-video/fxkjcsc Yes No reason to suspect not. ? Unfamiliar with publication. No Literally just an Instagram repost. ✘ No
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/My-love-for-you-deep-Smith-Asante-s-wife-to-hubby-895084 Yes No reason to suspect not. ? Unfamiliar with publication. No This is a reposted message from his wife, it doesn't confer notability, it's again just WP:MILL gossip. ✘ No
http://livefmghana.com/2017/03/15/ekow-smith-asantes-wife-sends-touching-message-birthday/ Yes See above. ? See above. No See above. ✘ No
https://www.pulse.com.gh/lifestyle/relationships-weddings/secret-wedding-ekow-smith-asante-marries-girlfriend-of-four-years/jc7xyvv Yes No reason to suspect not. ? Unfamiliar with publication. ~ A bit more in depth but still just TMZ-style gossip about a major life event. ? Unknown
https://austinemedia.com/ekow-smith-asante-biography-net-worth/ ? No "Biography and net worth" is in the title. This is auto-generated stuff that's less reliable than IMDb. Yes ✘ No
http://dailyheritage.com.gh/?p=4152 Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.ghmoviefreak.com/ekow-smith-asante-and-albert-kuvodu-to-feature-in-new-fiction-podcast-dem-times/ ? ? No Somebody started a podcast. WP:YAMB level blog gossip. ✘ No
https://ameyawdebrah.com/ecow-smith-asante-albert-kuvodu-and-barbara-newton-star-in-episode-6-of-dem-times/ Yes ? No See above. ✘ No
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Actor-Ekow-Smith-Asante-loses-mum-752081 Yes See 4 ? See 4 No See 4 ✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2921515/ ~ WP:IMDB ~ WP:IMDB ~ WP:IMDB ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete, per the source analysis above (which, for the record, is excellently well-done). jp×g 21:50, 9 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. The article appears to have been improved since it was nominated. Also received national attention when he died. Missvain (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Coffie[edit]

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

WP:BIO1E. Non-notable actor. nearlyevil665 20:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 20:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)'t[reply]
Don't Delete: The reason is he is a veteran Ghanaian actor and has featured in a lot of movie before he passed on so kindly maintain it, you can also research about him to get much fact done tagging for speedy deletion.Jwale2 (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You will have to be more specific as to how this subject - and other articles of yours that I have tagged for deletion - meet the notability requirements outlined in WP:ENT or WP:GNG. These have to be demonstrated through reliable secondary sources. nearlyevil665 21:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject in the article is a veteran actor in Ghana. 3 out of 4 sources provided in the article are reliable and independent sources. These references are top news outlets in Ghana. Myjoyonline, Citi Fm Citinewsroom and peacefmonline. Article needs to be improved rather than deleted. Ampimd (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet notability guidelines. How and why is this actor from Ghana different from every other actor? There dont’ seem to be enough facts in the citations or the article would be longer. Star7924 (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This actor from Ghana is not different from other Actors, The actor actually does meet both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, considering the improvements the article does have a good coverage that actually needs to be improved. I doubt taking it off is the best choice. The subject was a veteran actor in Ghana, West Africa, Acting in top movies in both Ghana and Nigeria. His death alone generated enough buzz, being covered by all top news outlets and entertainment platforms in Nigeria, Ghana and other African countries. Take it off leaves would create a gap that would have to be started all over again to fill in considering the efforts being put through numerous Edit-a-thons to work on African theatre and cinema. I hope my comments are considered. NB; Article has been improved in all aspects since its nomination Ampimd (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, does have mentions but not significant coverage to pass WP:NACTOR CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: CommanderWaterford, Star7924 Carefully go through the article and have a look at the citations within the article. https://books.google.com.gh/books?id=BktpS2StnxQC&q=Eddie+Coffie&pg=PA286&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=Eddie%20Coffie&f=false This alone gives a number of top movies the subject appeared in during that period. The article was started as part of a Edit-a-thon to ensure that notable movies and actors which meet the notability tag from Africa are covered on wikipedia, I believe just deleting it without giving a chance for improvement would mean just deciding to get such articles off. The article has been improved immensely since its nomination but still needs to be improved no doubt. Ampimd (talk) 12:21, 7 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 Chart pattern. Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Top (technical analysis)[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. See WP:NEXIST for more information.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:33, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Touch Football World Cup squads[edit]

2015 Touch Football World Cup squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of more than 1000 people, of which 2 are linked to an article (these are notable for their other achievements, not for their participation here). The 2015 World Cup itself is only a paragraph in another article, and is of minor notability. The squads are serious overkill. Fram (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not such a notable event that we need to list its non-notable participants. Reywas92Talk 18:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a list of non-notable people, definitely not needed. Especially when we don't even have an article on the event itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - says it's football but it's not, it's rugby. No evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - such lists are only useful for navigational purposes; given that the overwhelming majority of these sportspeople are completely non-notable, this list is essentially redundant Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Yes, its tip-rugby called "touch football". Non-notable event. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, a list full of non notable persons CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  JGHowes  talk 01:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy Asiedu[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. nearlyevil665 20:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 20:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Subject in article is a known veteran actress in Ghana, popular and notable. Article needs to be improved and reliable sources added. The little search I did, the subject demonstration meeting the notability tag. More references were added. Hopefully if its kept more of that can be added and well expanded. Ampimd (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is referenced (although could do with more). The subject seems to meet WP:N and WP:NACTOR (appeared in several notable films). ExRat (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The subject in the article has demonstrated meeting the notability tag for both actors and the general notability tag. She is a veteran actress in Ghana. The article needs to stay to give the chance for expansion and addition of more reliable sources. From the research done, for a period of about 10 years out of every 10 top movies in the local twi dialect in Ghana, she featured in 8 and won awards from those movies, She is known for playing controversial roles in those movies, which somehow made her also gain that popularity and notability. Ampimd (talk) 16:30, 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 keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foxhall A. Parker Sr.[edit]

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

U.S. Navy Commodore (United States) who commanded USS Constitution for a year or so in 1842. Also apparently commanded the Home Squadron in 1851. Page has only one ref and has been tagged refimprove since 2008. While there are a few sources I don't believe they amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's be clear. The one source is a 123 year old book on the history of the family he was a part of. I am not sure such a work, even published 5 years ago, would be considered a reliable source to document things that were an actual clain to notability. Not everyone who was the chief officer for the USS Constitution is default notable, and that is where we would have to set it at to find Parker as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 14 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 (☎) 10:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As commodore commanding the Home Squadron, one of the main divisions of the US Navy at the time, he would clearly seem to be notable. The fact he held this post is easily confirmed by a Google search. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he held the post is not disputed, nor is it inherently notable. Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was Commander-in-Chief of the East India Squadron (just added) which was all US Navy forces in the Far East, Commander of the USS Constitution, and commanded the Home Squadron. These are all historic and major positions. The article is also now well sourced. -- GreenC 21:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he commanded the Home Squadron or East India Squadron doesn't establish notability. Where is "historic and major positions" a notability guideline? Only SIGCOV in multiple RS establishes notability.Mztourist (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete In my WP:Before I'm struggling to find anything beyond directory naval listings and mentions of his relations to his more well-known sons. The sources given here are mostly about his family. We know when he held certain ranks and commands, but there's not much info on if he really did anything of note during his service. If we could find another source more focused on him and his career akin to the USS Constitution Museum entry I'd be inclined to change my mind. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indy beetle: additional sources and information added, including: one of two signatories of the historic Treaty of Wanghia which was historically the first Sino-American pact; his role in releasing hostages from Cuba; his role in a dispute with the British that almost led to a Anglo-American conflict; advised the German government on how to organize their navy. A Google Books search on "East India Squadron foxhall" came back with nearly a dozen pages of results and there might be more with similar key terms like "greytown foxhall", etc.. -- GreenC 16:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the provision of more sources I think this passes GNG so I'm switching my vote to Keep. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, WP:BASIC due to the multiple independent and reliable sources now in the article, and WP:ANYBIO #3, he has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography. Beccaynr (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography the "country's standard national biographical dictionary" as required by ANYBIO #3? Mztourist (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millie Lawson Bethell Paxton discussion, where the closing comment was A clear consensus for keep based on the presence of the subject's entry in the Dictionary of Virginia Biography, and some of the discussion was based on WP:ANYBIO and suggested that when there is an entry, it indicates a likelihood of other sources existing; in this case, that has also been established by the sources added to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then it seems the closer made a mistake, because a state's biography isn't the "country's standard national biographical dictionary" as required by ANYBIO #3. Mztourist (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems possible that the closer was reflecting the rough consensus of the discussion about the significance of the entry and the indication of the likely existence of additional sources. And at the time of the closing, the WP:ANYBIO criteria had not been edited diff to remove the "or similar publication" language - I have not been able to find whether there was any discussion on the change to the criteria and the apparent past consensus about the support an entry in a 'similar publication' can provide for notability, but regardless, the entry appears to be one of multiple independent and reliable sources that support notability per WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC) And thank you for calling my attention to the change in the criteria, it is appreciated. Beccaynr (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete As far as I can tell the article is based on one major RS, which was essentially misquoted both times it was used to discuss Parker's actions in the Caribbean (Long's "Gold Braid and Foreign Relations"). And Long's book doesn't go into any real detail about Parker, who honestly feels more like a spectator each time he's mentioned. Intothatdarkness 14:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC) I took another look at what was cited from Long and am removing weak from my !vote. In my view Parker didn't do anything notable. Intothatdarkness 16:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the article is based on one major RS" (emphasis added). That source is used 3 times out of 21 citations, or 14% of the article. GNG says nothing about "major" sources. -- GreenC 02:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it was misquoted at least twice and exaggerated one additional time. And in any case, the references are more namechecks than anything else...the basic gist being Parker was there and didn't screw anything up. The other sources are family history or obituaries. Evaluation of sources matters, and the job of a family history or obituary is to talk up the person in question. The one RS that wasn't an obit or family history piece is, at the end of the day, mainly namechecking. Intothatdarkness 14:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your characterization of the sources ("family history or obituaries" except for one is plainly untrue; so is the "namechecks" when is playing a role in events described; and obituaries in RS are perfectly acceptable); and of Foxhall Parker Sr himself ("was there and didn't screw anything up."). For some reason have take an extremely dim view of this article that has extended even to the person himself. -- GreenC 15:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed the point when it comes to obituaries. And Long's mentions of Parker clearly convey his impression of an officer who wasn't especially dynamic but wasn't going to make big mistakes either. Long's quote about Parker during his Havana mission (which was changed) sums it up: "It is hard to say to what extent his appeals contributed...but clearly Parker's arguments could have done no harm." In the end, an average officer of no major notability. Intothatdarkness 16:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that if you go back to the actual Army & Navy Journal article Parker's descendant was responding to (27 May, on page 918 of the source listed as reference 7 in the article), it doesn't confirm the offer of flag rank to Parker and notes as an aside that he took with him "several officers of our Navy who had been dismissed for dueling or other offenses not affecting their professional reputations." The same article also mentions an exchange of German naval officers during the same period. Letters to the editor (which is what D. Parker's piece in the ANJ was, after all) aren't always reliable. Intothatdarkness 16:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's only one major reliable source and the person didn't do anything notable. So, failing someone comes up with WP:THREE (or really two since we have one already) major reliable sources I'm not sure what grounds there are to keep this based on. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains multiple reliable sources, some old some new, notability does not expire with age, we don't favor newer sources over older. GNG says nothing about a requirement for major sources. -- GreenC 02:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say anything about the age of the sources? With the whole "major" thing, the requirements are that they not be trivial. Feel free to use whatever word you want to describe "non-trivial", I could really care less, but I went with major and last time I checked we can do that. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC says, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and WP:GNG says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and while the first source in the article is a relatively trivial mention despite including some career information, other sources have more than a trivial mention, including the USS Constitution Museum, which is focused on Parker, Sr., The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, which includes biographical and career information, the Annual Obituary Notices of Eminent Persons Who Have Died in the United States. For 1857, which includes career information, The Army and Navy Journal, which also includes career information, and the Virginia Encyclopedia of Biography, which also includes career information. Beccaynr (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The key word there is "may be combined", not "should be." Sure it's an option to combine sources so something is notable, but it's not obligatory. Nor is it the correct thing to do in every single instance. Obviously context matters. Outside of that, obituaries are by their nature trivial, especially for anyone in the armed services, and ussconstitutionmuseum.org is not an independent source. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My read on the 'may' is that it allows the combination when notability is challenged. The context of this particular obituary is in a collection of 'Eminent' persons, so it seems to support notability, and the USS Constituion Museum was incorporated in 1972 as a private, non-profit and non-government funded interpretive complement to USS Constitution, so it appears to be independent. Beccaynr (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a private mesuem for the ship he commanded. They have a vested interested in writing about him a way that will attract people to said mesuem. In no way is that independepent. Anymore then a webpage for a certain featured animal on a zoos website or one about a ride on the page for Disney Land would be. Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a regular zoo and especially a Disney Land ride are comparable, because the museum also has a research library, so the information it publishes about Parker, Sr. appears to be based on WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Beccaynr (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if that page was something put out by someone from said research library as part of a research project/printed journal article then I'd be cool with it because the information would be peer reviewed and attributed to someone. As it is though, its just a random page on a website without any attribution except the museum. So there's zero evidence the information was vetted by the research library let alone came from an expert in field or anything. For all we know some random IT person could have created the page based on some version of a Wikipedia article. That kind of thing happens all the time. There at least has to be some kind of attribution in the meantime to prove otherwise and there isn't. Even if it was though id still argue it isn't independent though anymore the various "research magazines" put out by religious groups like the Seventh Day Adventists or Scientology foundation are. Adamant1 (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence that this is a scholarly institution includes the Impact + Recognition page of the museum's website, e.g. "accredited by the American Alliance of Museums," and affiliated with the Council of American Maritime Museums and the Smithsonian Institution. Beccaynr (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. That's not my argument, it never has been, and I don't appreciate the Strawmaning that it is. Also, it doesn't matter who they are affiliated with. Notability isn't inherited and it's completely ridiculous to say a random anonymous blog post on a website should be used for notability just because whoever runs the website it's hosted on is affiliated with some other organization that is legitimate. Whatever janitorial service cleans the Smithsonian's bathrooms is affiliated with them. That doesn't mean I'd take anything they have to say about 18th century French Impressionism as gospel. Seriously, there should more then that behind your argument to keep an article. Really, if this article was about an actually notable subject everything wouldn't hinge on that one source or you desperately trying to legitimize it in this discussion anyway. Hopefully other "voters" will take of that. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To quickly clarify, because I do not wish to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion, I was trying to respond to the suggestion that it might be possible for some random IT person to have created the page based on some version of a Wikipedia article, and I am also not solely relying on the source to support notability, as noted above. And when focusing on the scholarly nature of the institution, I have been thinking of WP:INDEPENDENT, e.g. An "independent" source is one that has no vested interest in the subject. For example, the independent source will not earn any extra money by convincing readers of its viewpoint. A "third-party" source is one that is not directly involved in any transaction related to the subject, but may still have a financial or other vested interest in the outcome. [...] Except when directly specified otherwise in the policy or guideline, it is sufficient for a source to be either independent or third-party, and it is ideal to rely on sources that are both. This is a nonprofit, non-government museum and a research institution, not a random anonymous blog, and it therefore appears to be sufficiently independent and/or third-party to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But it's a random anonymous blog post on the website of the institution. Which you seem to be ignoring. Whatever the status of the institution is, it's really second to who wrote the page. I'd love to know how you can ascertain that the page was written by someone with the necessary expertise in the field to be considered an expert or would otherwise be knowledgeable enough on the topic, because there's really no way to know that. It's ridiculous to say that because the "institution" is not anonymous that any given page on their website isn't or that because they are associated with the Smithsonian that every single person all the way from their CEO to their door man is or that they all have the same level of expert knowledge. Like a random cafeteria lady at my local university is just as knowledgeable about history as a Phd history professor is, or even that the librarian chick who organizes the books in the library (and likely writes the random pages on their libraries website) knows as much about Sociology as the people in the sociology department. Let alone that would have same clout anywhere "because hey man, their part of the same institution right?" So a random cafeteria lady or librarian is totally the same as a tenured research professor. Or a random page on the libraries website is exactly the same as a Masters thesis. Whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that libraries are typically in the business of publishing stuff written by randos with no fact-checking or editorial oversight. The fact that an individual author isn't listed does not seem like a requirement for most sources (dictionaries, encyclopedias, government documents, et cetera often don't specify authors), so it doesn't seem reasonable to apply such a requirement here. jp×g 22:08, 9 May 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? 15:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep informative, well-sourced article on notable military person per HEY. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sources The majority of sources for this article are obituaries, some cited multiple times in the same paragraph. The Army & Navy Journal citation tracks back to a letter to the editor written by a descendant of the subject, and thus can't be considered impartial (or even probably RS). The article it was written in response to was a piece in the previous ANJ that made far less sweeping claims and made Parker's assignment sound more routine (and even that piece said "Though we do not find any record of the fact, we are informed by an old officer of our Navy" before discussing Parker's assignment). The RS scholarly sources used make scant mention of the subject (and in my view were misrepresented in earlier versions of the article to enhance Parker's role in events). If you evaluate the sources, and check them for accuracy, it reduces the notability of the subject to the point (in my view) he doesn't pass GNG. Intothatdarkness 13:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any how you count it, "the majority of sources are obits" is factually not true. It's easy to tell, obits are published around the year someone died, look a the source dates there is one obit the rest are biographical or monologues. And even it were true (which it is not) so what? You are going out of your way to misrepresent the sources with negative opinions and characterizations. First you said there was was one reliable source ("major") now you admit there are multiple "scholarly sources". You say they make "scant" mention, but the sources describe the events he was involved in sufficiently - it would be hard to write an article with "scant" mentions. The Army & Navy Journal is just one citation of many, the letter itself is a WP:PRIMARY (acceptable) but the fact it was re-published in a RS tells us something about the notability of the topic and the letter - this how we determine if a primary source is notable enough for inclusion, mentions in secondary sources. -- GreenC 16:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The letter was published, not republished. It appears only in ANJ. And at the time I made my comment regarding one major RS there was only one in the article. Perhaps if you had backtracked to the original piece in the ANJ you would have understood the context of that letter. And clearly it's possible to write an article of sorts with scant mentions...we're discussing one now. Intothatdarkness 16:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would consider commanders of the Home Squadron, which had an unusual significance in the history of the Caribbean for its era, to be inherently notable. Whether or not this is generally agreed upon, there are typically substantial sources for holders of this position, and there are sufficient sources for this one. I would note that Newspapers.com returns over 190 hits for "Foxhill A. Parker" for the period from 1840 to 1852. BD2412 T 01:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of the massive improvements that have been done to the article since nomination. jp×g 22:05, 9 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.  JGHowes  talk 01:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia High School[edit]

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

School does not seem notable. No reliable sources currently in the article, a search of the school only turns up Facebook pages and such. EpicPupper 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe regular Google searches are a bad place to find sources on an Indian topic, given that most of the results will be of Western sources especially in GNews cites, but this looks just a school like any other average school. No coverage I found. Maybe you'll find coverage if you're in India? 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added some sources. The school has a number of notable alumni and the special education unit in particular has received attention in reliable sources. The school was called Convent of the Sacred Heart for its first nine years, according to the article, and this common name may be hindering finding sources for the early years. Given its history and number of notable alumni, and the fact that some sources may not be in English or online, I think it is likely that other sources exist. The article does need some pruning of unsourced and non-notable information, and the structure is a bit muddled, but those are not reasons for deletion. Tacyarg (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you get rid of all the un-referenced material the only thing that is left is the Notable alumni section. Which isn't enough to base an article on, let alone for it to pass the standards of the notability guidelines. Notability isn't inherited either. So, I don't think keeping it just because of the notable alumni alone is a valid argument. Otherwise, every random restaurant out there that a celebrity eats at would have an article. The standard should be even higher with high schools IMO though because 99% of the time the notable people went to the high school before they were notable and there's zero evidence the high schools they attended have anything to do with their notability. Hardly ever (if at all), except in rare cases, are such things ever mentioned in the persons article. Nor does the school itself usually acknowledge anywhere that the person even went there. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd say the section about the special education unit is well-sourced from a range of reliable sources. (I added them so obviously am biassed.) I have also now found several Times of India references that I hadn't previously put in as the ToI is described at WP:RSP as "a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable". I saw today it being described as an RS at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leher App, and on looking at the RfC on this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287 there are people saying it is reliable, so have added those in. I've only used articles with bylines, as I know this is an indicator of reliability. With the 6 citations I have just added, the article now has 10 reliable references excluding the 6 which establish the attendance of former students. This passes WP:GNG. I think the two descriptions of the status of the school by the ToI are particularly striking: "one of Bangalore's "legendary" schools with "a historic past", and one of the city's "top schools" which, before the 1990s, "had identities that went beyond their names"" (linked to two different articles by different writers). Tacyarg (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the references. That aside though, your quotes of the school being "legendary", having "a historic past", and so on sounds more like hyperbolic advertising then anything else. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to LessWrong#Roko's basilisk. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roko's basilisk[edit]

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

Not sure this is all that notable, way too many primary sources or youtube videos. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Roko's basilisk article is little more than a stub at the moment. However, it is frequently referenced among the less wrong crowd and even in popular culture. Given this, it would make more sense to expand this near stub article into a more comprehensive one. My 2¢… sbelknap (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It needs to be referenced by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. It should be expanded, and more sources cited. The sub-section on the LessWrong page doesn't go into depth on the topic. ThetaRokosBasilisk (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yea, I was going to find other sources for it. Though I don't think that it needs to be deleted. ThetaRokosBasilisk (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LessWrong#Roko's_basilisk. The available WP:RS do not justify our saying much more than is already said there. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LessWrong#Roko's_basilisk. Not really separately notable from LessWrong. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, agreeing with above. A full breakdown in an article doesn't seem necessary (or possible with RS). —Wingedserif (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It is sometimes mentioned in popular culture and outside of LessWrong.ThetaRokosBasilisk (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per the landslide above. It has no notability outside of LessWrong. jps (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it might have no notability outside of LessWrong, the subsection on the LessWrong article does not cover the thought expiriment in sufficient detail, and you can't really cover something in detail in a subsection. ThetaRokosBasilisk (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would keep. have heard of the thought experiment, but literally never heard of LessWrong. meaning I heard of thought experiment in some other source. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A WP:BEFORE brings these up. Unsure if this demonstrates sufficient notability or not; I lean to no.
    • Singler, Beth (March 2019). "EXISTENTIAL HOPE AND EXISTENTIAL DESPAIR IN AI APOCALYPTICISM AND TRANSHUMANISM". Zygon. 54 (1): 156–176. doi:10.1111/zygo.12494. --- perhaps the greatest claim to notability, rather in-depth on the subject
    • Wilson, Alexander (2017). "Techno-Optimism and Rational Superstition". Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology. 21 (2): 342–362. doi:10.5840/techne201711977. -- not in depth
    • Some articles: [9] (in article), [10], [11] -- cross reference with WP:RSP, seem trivial to me
Thanks, Urve (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Zygon item is apparently part of a conference proceedings collection (see the intro), which in some fields would suggest a lower standard of peer review than a typical journal article. XOR'easter (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense, thanks, will keep in mind for future reference. Think it's still the greatest claim to notability but not enough, redirection is best outcome here Urve (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LessWrong#Roko's_basilisk. It's perfectly well taken care of as a a section in Less Wrong. The sources above deal with it in the context of the rationalist community, and that's what we should do as well. Tercer (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LessWrong#Roko's_basilisk. Notability exists largely in the context LW and it's sister forums, and it's already covered adequately over at Less Wrong. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LessWrong#Roko's_basilisk per Volteer1. I note Urve's references and also that Liz Sandifer's book Neoreaction: A Basilisk uses this device as a framing metaphor and covers a wider territory than just LessWrong, so it is possible that someday the topic will deserve coverage that does not fit into the current LW article, but I think we are not at that point yet. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just needs to be expanded. Important concept which is only going to become more relevant in the near future.Nweil (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See wp:crystal, we do not create articles on things that might be imortant in the future, when (and if) it becomes notable we can allways write a decent article about it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is already notable AND it will become more relevant. All the more reason to expand it. Nweil (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that yes, its (somewhat) notable, but the problem is that there aren't enough reliable sources for it. User-generated sources, like videos on youtube, aren't reliable sources and need to be cited alongside other, more reliable sources. ThetaRokosBasilisk (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our job to speculate about what might become important one day. Nor can we declare things to be important without documentation to that effect. XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the increase in page views since this article was created if you are disputing the increase in relevance. In addition, speculation on a talk page or in a deletion discussion is quite different than speculation in an article. But I'm sure an experienced editor such as yourself knows this. Nweil (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Page view counts do not imply notability (nor would their absence imply a lack of it). Notability is about what has happened, not what might happen. XOR'easter (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not contending the page stats imply notability. The notability comes from appearances in a wide range of publications and in popular culture. Nweil (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And what if a future AI punishes us for deleting the page? ;) Hyperbolick (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The chance of a SAI/CEV actually going through with its threat to punish those who did not create it is extremely low. It's been debunked on RationalWiki. ThetaRokosBasilisk (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're convincing me that we should delete this article on the grounds that it is an infohazard. Not Wikipedia policy, but we're going to have a real problem if the idea catches on and hordes of deluded people start coming here to spread the idea of the basilisk as far as they can. Tercer (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certain we have pages on worse ideas than this. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* It is not Wikipedia policy to remove a page based on the fact that it can be psychologically distressing to others. Should we remove the school shootings article because it visiting the page triggers a flashback in a PTSD sufferer who survived a school shooting? No. Read WP:CENSOR ThetaRokosBasilisk (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Since there appears to only be one independent textual source used, indicating a lack of notability. RationalWiki could potentially be another but can only be used as an external link and its entry is an argument that it's fringe so not an indication of notability. Maybe Tercer is right but assuming that it becomes notable enough and considering that it's not illegal material, there would ultimately be an article, but also enough material to present it without promoting it as realistic... —PaleoNeonate – 13:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are suggesting that we should delete/keep this article because of the fact that it is an infohazard, just know that an ASI/CEV would have an extremely low incentive to actually go through with its promise to punish people. No one except deluded lunatics actually takes this seriously. You shouldn't either. ThetaRokosBasilisk (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one but deluded lunatics take QAnon seriously also, but nevertheless they manage to cause a lot of trouble. That's the thing with infohazards, talking about them even to debunk them spreads the poison to more vulnerable people and causes more problems. That's not my reason for defending a redirect, though, the reason is simply that the basilisk does not have notability independent of Less Wrong. As infohazards go the basilisk is very low on the list of dangerous ones. Tercer (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What I got from the above discussion is either you all are bad at looking up sources or you all purposefully didn't bother because it would counteract your claims on there not being sources. Whichever one it is, i'm disappointed in all of you as Wikipedia editors that made such a statement. At the very least address the sources that exist, even if you're going to vote Redirect. Don't lie about there not being sources. Anyways, here's the sources I found in a very quick and easy Google search that took less than a minute of my time (more time spent here formatting them):
I also went a bit into the first two pages of Google Scholar there at the end, with many more things to look at. I didn't even use my Wikipedia Library access to search through there, so there's probably a lot more to find. Also, it's pretty cool there was some sort of theatre art/presentation entirely on the subject. SilverserenC 18:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter:, @Wingedserif:, @Chalst:, @PaleoNeonate:, please see above for available reliable sources. SilverserenC 18:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These look to be either sources that are already mentioned in the LessWrong section, ones I found in my own WP:BEFORE search and ultimately didn't think much of, or already mentioned above (e.g., the "Journal of Religion & Science" item is the Zygon article discussed earlier). For example, the Herald item is marked as an opinion piece and moreover discusses it in the context of LessWrong, suggesting that it is not sufficiently separate from its origins to merit a stand-alone article. Likewise for the Orbiter item, and I'm doubtful on the editorial standards of that publication (glossy website, but it seems to have more people doing marketing, "strategy" and social media than editing nearly everyone involved). Document Journal, which appears mostly to be a fashion magazine with a little "culture" coverage, skims past the basilisk in its opening paragraphs on the way to discussing AI risk and its perception in Silicon Valley more generally. Nowadays, the Basilisk is a joke even to such people. Again, this could potentially be used to augment the section in LessWrong, but I'm not seeing how it adds to the case for a dedicated article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a total of 5 of the references above used in that other article. And there are far more than 5 sources above. You seem to have purposefully picked out only the weakest sources to argue against and ignored the rest. Such as the books and journal articles outside of that one you mentioned. SilverserenC 18:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't ignored them. It's just that I've long since grown accustomed to flash-in-the-pan sensationalism and clickbait on the margins of science, so I personally have rather high standards for such topics to meet, and all the more so to get articles devoted to them. In this case, I've noticed a few general patterns. The first is that there's been a drop-off in even the marginal sources since 2018 or so. The jokes have been made, and the world has moved on. If the subject has not seen sustained interest (in a verifiable way), then it's probably best for us to write about it in its historical context. LessWrong#Roko's basilisk, maybe with a little expansion, does that. The second general trend is that the sources do not indicate there is all that much more to write than we already have; repeated explanations of what the basilisk is do not amount to a reason to make our explanation longer. Third, the sources tie it firmly into LessWrong. Indeed, what they find interesting about it is what it says about the psychology of the LessWrong crowd. The review of Sandifer's book [12] is a good example of that. The sources justify our writing more about LessWrong, not more about the basilisk independently. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This just seems like an acknowledgement by you that you stopped looking at the list halfway through and didn't bother looking at the sources in 2019 and 2020 from books and journals at the end. You know, the ones directly dealing with the subject matter in a scientific focus. SilverserenC 19:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd call their focus scientific, but what am I neglecting? The book from 2021 starts by saying, In 2010 on LessWrong forum, a user named Roko posited. I didn't say that sources stopped existing, just that from what I could tell, what ones there were seem to have petered off. XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With such a list of sources, this is time for WP:THREE, I think: can you name three of those sources that best support keep over redirect to LW? The list of sources you found is a bit longer than I expected, but your accompanying text does not really argue that the LW article would be not be a good home for Wikipedia's content about RB. I'm generally a bit concerned about the potential for biased editing with respect to LW/Scott Alexander/etc articles, and the fewer of these I have on my watchlist, the happier I am. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have an opinion on LW, since I didn't even know about them prior to this AfD. As for sourcing, sure. I would probably go with the entire prologue of this upcoming book from Springer Nature, probably the Russian scholarly article that is entirely on the subject, so is more of a discussion than the other sources, and for the third you could take any of the news sources, but i'm rather partial to the art/theatre piece that was made on the subject. SilverserenC 16:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's like this for all subjects, but for physics and mathematics, the peer-review standards for Springer monographs are in practice lower than they are for journal articles. Reviewers have to approve a book proposal before the book can happen, but the content of the book doesn't get careful attention. My guess is that something similar holds true for their publications on Lacanian psychoanalysis. Reading through that preface (we may apprehend the möbius structure of the relationship between AI and psychoanalysis, etc.) I don't see how it detaches the topic from LessWrong. Sure, it says (without evidence) the Basilisk was influential in a wider community, but we can write about the influence of LessWrong in the article about LessWrong. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could just openly admit that no amount of sourcing would be good enough for you. You'd try to find technicalities on every source and if it even mentions LW (which is the background and would obviously be at least mentioned by any source discussing this further), you're going to claim that means no independent notability. Despite that not being how notability works. You're essentially arguing, as a hyperbolic example, that we can't have an article on natural selection because every source discussing the subject is likely to mention or refer to Charles Darwin, therefore we should just put everything on his page. SilverserenC 18:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to "openly admit" something that isn't true. And I don't think your hyperbolic example is really a parallel situation. There's plenty to say about natural selection that doesn't fit into a biography of Darwin (just like there's plenty to say about inertia or gravity or differential calculus that wouldn't fit into a biography of Newton). The concept had a history before him and continued to develop long after. Here, we have something that started on LessWrong and is typically discussed as something that happened in their community. It's treated as something that illustrates the psychology of the people who hang out there. For example, among a certain set of mostly white, young, tech-savvy men, this simple thought experiment sired nightmares [13]. Or, the Basilisk had already wreaked havoc among the forum’s readers many of whom had started to experience psychological difficulties [14]. Or, the Roko’s Basilisk thought experiment is particularly revealing regarding the nature of the neoreactionary community that has so many roots in LessWrong’s culture and norms [15]. What isn't just restating the original idea or saying what it means for LessWrongers tends to collapse down to a single line, e.g., "A community theatre group staged a play inspired by the Basilisk at the Christ United Methodist Church in Washington, DC". As WP:N says, even if a topic meets a notability guideline, that is not a guarantee that [it] will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. The LessWrong#Roko's basilisk section could probably be expanded a bit, and the sources you enumerated could help with that. Seriously, genuinely, thanks for listing them and filling in all those citation templates! If the text of this article had been in better shape, I might have suggested a merge, but it read pretty much like a redux of what was already there with some WP:OR on top, so I !voted for a redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even within the subject of the LW article, you're actually making an argument for keeping this one, as the amount of information to be added to that section would be far longer than should be in that article. This meaning that it should then be WP:SPLIT into a separate article with a linkback from the LW article. So even under the argument that the material should be there, it should still be an independent article. SilverserenC 19:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section LessWrong#Roko's basilisk plus two sentences would still be the section LessWrong#Roko's basilisk, not something heavy enough to need its own page. XOR'easter (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think just about everyone at this point agrees that the basilisk article needs to be spiffed up. Thank to the sources from Silver seren it is eminently possible to do that now. Your claim that this is firmly tied to LessWrong does not hold up. None of the headlines of those sources say "message board phenomenon Roko's Basilisk" or something to that effect. It's not even mentioned except in the body of the article to provide insight and context into the provenance of it all. Nweil (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The one person who has !voted since the list of sources was posted above suggested a redirect, so I'm not seeing a strong level of agreement forming that the basilisk article needs to be spiffed up. And headlines, even of reliable sources, aren't reliable sources themselves: Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles. XOR'easter (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Found another one, here's the relevant part.
"We will offer one final example, due to the noteworthiness of its driving force, of a fictional scenario contingently impacting not only public perceptions of AI, but the attitudes and behaviors of the researchers themselves: the notion of Roko’s Basilisk. Although purely speculative and up until this point nothing more than an imaginary entity, Roko’s Basilisk is having an effect on part of the community of friendly AI researchers, particularly the rationalists working on existential risk, to the extent that it has been deemed a dangerous idea and the mere mention of it has been strongly discouraged. What could make a purely fictional creature so terrifying and so worthy of these cautionary measures?
Roko’s Basilisk is a hypothetical future artificial superintelligence, that, if it came into existence, would retroactively institute, through coercion, the set of policies that would have hastened its coming into existence. More concretely put, it is presumed to be so powerful as to be able to torture all those who knew of the possibility of its eventual existence, but did no invest a significant amount of their efforts and resources to actualizing its potential. Not even death would be a safeguard against this nightmarish scenario, as the Basilisk is presumed to be so advanced as to be able to create perfect simulations of the transgressing researchers which it would eternally punish. Far-fetched? Most certainly, and yet there’s no denying that this egregore, this collective mental entity, has a certain psychological pull, and that many who have learned of the concept dearly wish they’d never heard of it."
Giuliano RM (December 2020). "Echoes of myth and magic in the language of Artificial Intelligence". AI & Society. 35 (4): 1009–1024. doi:10.1007/s00146-020-00966-4. Retrieved April 30, 2021. SilverserenC 19:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right and no "firm tie" to LessWrong there. It's become detached from LessWrong and deserves a separate article. Nweil (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it uses very direct terminology toward it's notability, such as "noteworthiness of its driving force" and describes the impact the subject has had on both AI researchers and the general public. SilverserenC 20:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It uses rather grandiose language, but it doesn't actually contain significant coverage, not being more substantial than the passage we already devote to the topic in LessWrong. (It also seems to be sloppy in its scholarship, not actually citing a source itself for what the basilisk is. That's not a killing flaw; it just contributes to the general air of superficiality.) For that matter, an article that contains no less than seven citations to Yudkowsky and spends a paragraph praising Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality is not exactly outside the LessWrong sphere. XOR'easter (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LessWrong#Roko's_basilisk - where it's covered in enough detail, not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show enough notability for a standalone article. Onel5969 TT me 19:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, both The Herald and Slate are reliable sources per WP:RSPSOURCES. Vice/Motherboard is no consensus although the discussions have had nice things to say about motherboard vis a vis tech issues. Nweil (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horton, California[edit]

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

This one is so obscure it doesn't appear on USGS topographic maps and doesn't even have a GNIS entry. I found it difficult to search for this one, as it's not entirely clear what this site is, and Horton is a common name. Found last names, a Bureau of Land Management campground named Horton Creek, a creek, a lake, and a court case involving a dispute over an Inyo County ranch named Horton. Maybe others can find better sourcing that I could, but this isn't looking like a notable location. Hog Farm Talk 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It's actually extremely easy to pick out the junction itself and the old roadbed— even the telegraph poles are still there! But what's not there is anything in the vicinity of a point 3.2 miles or so down the line from the junction, other than typical salt flat-ish features and the trace of the old right-of-way. I have to think this is an extremely minor RR point (it doesn't show up on the map of the Topanah and Tidewater) but at any rate there doesn't seem to be anything to say about it, and all evidence is against it being a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is actually on that map, you can see it written just under DEATH VALLEY (see another map). It was inhabited (see [16]) but I'm not sure this was a permanent settlement, there was certainly a labor camp there at one point. It's mentioned several times in [17] and [18].----Pontificalibus 16:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of those sources, I can only get the Gbooks preview for the link for the "it was inhabited" one. Did you have any better luck with the preview stuff, Pontificalibus? I'm willing to withdraw if significant coverage can be found. Hog Farm Talk 16:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm generally lucky with GBooks preview. I can see all five mentions in one, and all four in the other. All passing mentions such as "in the sweltering mess tent in the construction camp at Horton".----Pontificalibus 17:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the directions in the article are incorrect (it's actually WSW of DVJ), but the result is basically the same: the grades are still plain, ninety years after abandonment, and again there is just nothing there besides, which I must admit don't go back all that far, but still.... Evidence is still that it was a rail point which hosted a construction camp, presumably to build the junction itself. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given that the T&T Railroad branch serving the borate mine at Lila C, California was constructed in 1907 and this was named after a railroad worker, its unlikely to pre-date the railroad. All indications are that it was a construction camp for the railroad branch built 1914 serving the second borate mine at Ryan, California. No indication it continued as a settlement after what had then become the Death Valley Railroad closed in 1934.----Pontificalibus 17:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the books that indeed confirm this to be a junction named after one Ben Horton (construction gang foreman and roadmaster) can be, it turned out after I had found them the hard way, easily found in Death Valley Railroad#References. Uncle G (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The second you google 'Horton, California', the second thing that pops up is the Horton v. California article. Plus not verifiable. Regards. JayzBox (talk) 07:44, 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. Missvain (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aviv Ezra[edit]

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

Promotional piece about a diplomat who certainly doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sourcing to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Purely promotional vanity piece by SPA with likely COI issues, on a non-notable civil servant. If the article is to remain, it needs a hefty pile of TNT followed by a new stub, but based on the contents here I really don't see any merit to keeping it, as neither writing op-eds nor serving in the diplomatic corps is in any way notable. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely SPA with COI issues. Promotional piece as per above. No lede. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This article provides reliable and important information about the Midwestern U.S.'s relationship with Israel, a strategic U.S. partner and ally. All sources are credible, and in many cases, come from the most prominent news outlets in Midwestern cities. Additionally, Ezra's relationship with high-ranking domestic officials and his international trips with them should be public knowledge. Finally, contrary to what is stated above, Ezra is not just any member of the diplomatic corps, he is the highest ranking Israeli official in 9 states.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 XEDIT. Missvain (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hessling Editor[edit]

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

I prodded this few months back with "e coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". The article has been deprodded and slightly improved since, sadly, I am afraid the coverage shown is still a far cry from what GNG/NSOFT requires. Can anyone find anything to save this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:*Keep: (see alt information below Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)) The use of REXX macros is notably unqiue. However as my RL would be disrupted in attempting to RS I won't. I am aware of the nom. and feel fucking goaded by the nomination. But there we fucking are. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not enough coverage to justify a keep. Should someoneimprove and find more, I would be happy to re-evaluate. Webmaster862 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per discussion with @Djm-leighpark: and the lack of a prior relist, I'm going to relist this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: To XEDIT (I had originally thought Rexx) where it can usefully be accommodated without being WP:UNDUE but XEDIT is possibly better, possibly not). With acks to Nosebagbear for this decision to relist and ensuring nom. & contributors are notified. (@Piotrus and Webmaster862:). Merge option probably should have been identified early. I hate relists but if in went to a DRV on a new information basis that would liekly be the end result. To state the obvious I'd probably prefer to keep; but the cost/risk/benefit to me at this time for a search is unwarranted unless I happen across a good offline resource as a side catch of another source. I confirm I am personally prepared to execute the Merge. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:24, 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 Chart patterns. Missvain (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom (technical analysis)[edit]

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

No references, and tagged since 2009 as having no references. With no references, does not satisfy general notability because no reliable sources are listed that report significant coverage.

See also Top (technical analysis), which is also unreferenced. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's whether such sources exist, so that a stub can be expanded, not whether they are cited. What, if anything at all, did you do to find out whether sources exist? Because actual research leads to Richard W. Schabacker's original 1932 work Technical Analysis and Stock Market Profits which has all of the terminology that people use today, including numerous books on the subject from a For Dummies one upwards, such as the "Head and Shoulders" top/bottom on pages 42 to 64 and the "Rounding Top" a.k.a. "Common Turn" on pages 67 to 74. And Schabacker wasn't just some nobody making stuff up. Xe was the editor of Forbes. All of this turns up with even a modicum of research, as the modern serious sources directly credit and cite Schabacker. The real problem here is that many, but not all, chart patterns exist in both "top" and "bottom" forms, and the real way to approach this would have been to write about the patterns with Schabacker in hand, not go after the words. Uncle G (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with Uncle G with regards to notability, but articles that completely lack sources, reliable or otherwise, are a hygiene problem for Wikipedia, because editors have to waste time figuring out if the are OR. There's not really a WP:BEFORE problem with this listing, because you have to know a bit about this kind of topic to know where to look for references. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: If nobody is willing to put in the effort to furnish this article with references, would making it a redirect to chart patterns be a good idea? — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to chart patterns without any prejudice against a well sourced article taking the redirect’s place as and when it can be written. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 19:28, 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. Missvain (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Butler (musician)[edit]

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

BLP referenced only to Discogs (user-generated content, not a WP:RS) and an article about his brother. 59 results on Google News exist for "Leslie Butler", most of which seem to be quoting an agriculture professor of the same name. None mention him. Google results do not turn up anything remotely useful either. I will withdraw this nomination if someone can find something I couldn't. jp×g 02:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep various sources in books. "jazz + Leslie Butler" quickly produced several books and articles. Although it has to be said clearly in younger brother's shadow. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Google search of "jazz leslie butler" and various permutations of that returns little more than retailers and a few passing mentions in pieces about jazz scenes. Google books is a null outside copyright catalogues. Fails WP:MUSICBIO; [WP:GNG]] and pretty much every notability test there is. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khatereh Asadi[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 12:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While English results are very scarce, there are lots of results for searches under her Persian name. Based on those searches, she has played in numerous movies, TV series, and theatrical performance in Iran. I have added references to the article based on that. I think based on her works she passes WP:NACTOR. SunDawn (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Large amount of Persian language sources establishing notability. Furius (talk) 22:39, 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. Going with keeps. I did a Google news search for the subject and I do believe with the right sourcing, etc, he qualifies via WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Wood (veteran)[edit]

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

Can't see why this guy is notable. Fails WP:BIO scope_creepTalk 08:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jp×g 08:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. jp×g 08:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. jp×g 08:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also WP:AUTHOR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFAIK the book Charlie Mike is published by Simon and Schuster and is "50%" about him and his Team Rubicon work. I would have thought that, when added to the other sources, was more than enough to meet GNG. No doubt the book has more personal info as well as details on the Team Rubicon stuff. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the reviews? scope_creepTalk 21:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Asher Heimermann: There are no notability policies on Wikipedia that says if you found an NGO or a company then you are notable. I founded an NGO or more explicitly a charity once, am I notable? Could be by your rules, but of course, I'm not and neither is this person. Where is the reference to support it? Three per WP:THREE would do it. scope_creepTalk 13:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He might have a couple of honourary degrees. If you could find them, it would be ideal. scope_creepTalk 13:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that there is enough coverage about this individual to show notability, together with the awards and the founding of a notable organization. Added mention to his newest book, and reviews of the book about him. Alan Islas (talk) 05:32, 7 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. Consensus to keep, meets WP:NMUSICBIO (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julianne Ankley[edit]

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

Fails WP:SINGER, article created by SPA, virtually its sole contributor. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a lot of very good verifiable references and follows guidelines for number 7 of outlined qualifications. With 13 Detroit Music Awards, this musician is contributing and shaping the Detroit Music scene right now. Please don’t delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenInTen (talk • contribs) 12:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, probably meets WP:BASIC, per the significant coverage available in independent, reliable, secondary sources.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Ashley Winn (29 October 2020). "Singer-Songwriter Julianne Ankley Proves It's Never Too Late To Follow Your Dreams". Hour Detroit. Retrieved 28 April 2021.
  2. ^ Grace Turner. "Julianne Ankley to debut new single at Lexington concert". The Times Herald. Retrieved 28 April 2021.
  3. ^ Dale Hemmila (7 February 2020). "JULIANNE ANKLEY: Musically Talented". Blue Water Woman Magazine. Retrieved 28 April 2021.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:15, 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. Tone 12:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

W RUGBY[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. I cannot find any news references at all to this company. The links provided are either primary sources, sites about rugby, or sites of organisations sponsored by W rugby. Daiyusha (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and SailingInABathTub's comments. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:16, 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 Slough Feg. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 11:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight of the Idols (Slough Feg album)[edit]

Twilight of the Idols (Slough Feg album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music), simply just an introduction and track listing   Kadzi   (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Slough Feg- I was initially confused that the artist's article is merely a redirect, however it is clear from this source that they later changed their name to Slough Feg. The album fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent, has not received critical attention, or charted on national music charts, or received certifications or accolades. --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashleyyoursmile: yes, I was confused too – I was on the point of suggesting that this would have been a potential A9 speedy deletion as it didn't appear the band had an article, and then I found the article under the band's new name. I've changed the links on the band's first four albums so that they correctly link to the band's article. Richard3120 (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note that there are 11 album articles for this band. Two have recently been nominated for deletion, but several of the others have the same issues with lack of sources beyond basic directory listings. In fairness though, the band started to get much more reliable coverage by their fifth or sixth album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Slough Feg - Note that there are a bunch of different albums with this title by various bands, which adds some issues for Wikipedia search terms. For this one, I found that the album is often mentioned in retrospective biographies of the band (see. e.g. [19]) but I don't think the album has enough direct and independent coverage as an entity in its own right. No harm in redirecting to the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 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 Slough Feg. Anyone is free to contest the name at the RfD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 11:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord Weird Slough Feg (album)[edit]

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

Non notable album, fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music) , merely just a track listing and a short introduction.   Kadzi   (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Slough Feg- I was initially confused that the artist's article is merely a redirect, however it is clear from this source that they later changed their name to Slough Feg. The album fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent, has not received critical attention, or charted on national music charts, or received certifications or accolades. --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note that there are 11 album articles for this band. Two have recently been nominated for deletion, but several of the others have the same issues with lack of sources beyond basic directory listings. In fairness though, the band started to get much more reliable coverage by their fifth or sixth album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Slough Feg - Early release by a band that got reliable notice several years later. This particular album got no independent coverage of its own and only appears as an item in lists of works by the band. There is no harm in redirecting to the band's article, though search terms could become an issue because this album title is also the band's original pre-simplified name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I know redirects are WP:CHEAP, but there's already one in place at The Lord Weird Slough Feg. If there isn't even a reference in this one's history, it doesn't need to be preserved (and have the potential for someone to try and restore). Redirect is OK if absolutely necessary, though. -- 2pou (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the existing redirect mentioned in the above vote is actually for the original long version of the band's name, not the album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No "keep" or "delete" vote because I've not looked at the article beyond ascertaining that it didn't qualify for speedy deletion, but if it doesn't qualify for an article, why redirect? Who's going to search for the (album) disambiguated title when the no-parentheses form already exists? Can't The Lord Weird Slough Feg serve both for the band and for the album? Correct me if pop-music fans don't search this way, but unless they search differently from other people, I don't see the point. I found just two articles with links to this article in their code (as opposed to transcluded template links), the band article and Twilight of the Idols (Slough Feg album) (which is also up for deletion), and I question the likelihood of obscure pop-music articles getting significant links in old versions of articles or off-wiki. Even this old version and this old version of articles about other albums by this band don't mention this album; if closely related articles don't link it, what will? It just seems like a useless redirect to me; keep it or delete it. Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diba Zahedi[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Fail of WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. nearlyevil665 10:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 10:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subject does not appear to be notable. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 11:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Diba zahedi very famous in Iran and she actress and she knowledge panel https://g.co/kgs/q6gZTe / Please edit Articles and remove tag /Because no problem in Articles and famous human / As you can see, Diba Zahedi is a Persian Actress, and unfortunately, there is no copyright law in Iran. That’s why the most reliable source on the Persian music market is Radio Javan. Please do research, and you’ll see it’s true.
@Aliasghar ghorbandokht: Please do not add multiple comments in a (really bad) attempt to act like there's consensus against deletion. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 11:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aliasghar ghorbandokht: you made the same irrelevant point about copyright in the last AfD you tried to bludgeon. Also it’s really irritating of you to tell everyone else to do research when when it is mainly you who needs to do research into Wikipedia’s notability guidelines before creating articles. Mccapra (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Google search found no significant coverage and only passing mentions. A complete fail of WP: GNG. ColinBear (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it doesn't matter what the excuse is, if there is no significant coverage in reliable sources, then WP:GNG is failed and the subject is not notable enough for an article Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely any coverage is likely to be under her name as written in farsi script? @Aliasghar ghorbandokht: Can you provide Diba Zahedi in farsi script? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She have article on Farsi Wikipedia
دیبا زاهدی
@Hemiauchenia:
  • Keep: She's starred in a number of notable movies. IMDB lists her as playing Termeh in Blade and Termeh [20], and Maryam (the female lead) in A Five Star [21]. So, she has had multiple significant roles in notable films and meets the notability requirements for actresses. Furius (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. Fails notability guideline. Kaspadoo (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 03:28, 7 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 12:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mi7 Records[edit]

Mi7 Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:INHERITORG, association with possibly notable bands or groups don't make the record company inherit notability and there is nothing in WP:NMUSIC or WP:NCORP that record labels have separate SNG, so this should be evaluated against NCORP, which I don't find the company meets the requirements. Graywalls (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In additiont to the concerns raised by the nominator, I couldn't find any evidence that Charlie Winston, one of the musicians they claim is signed to them, has released anything through said label. Most of the other artists, only Discogs (which is unreliable, as it's user-generated) confirms an Mi7 release. Kncny11 (shoot) 21:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One Guardian article isn't enough to demonstrate notability. Nexus000 (talk) 02:48, 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 speedy delete. Author blanked and requested WP:CSD#G7. Katietalk 18:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Folajimi Olubunmi-Adewole[edit]

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

A brave act that falls squarely into WP:BIO1E. The event itself is daily news. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 12:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpenXPKI[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. We discussed this in detail on User talk:Mbartosch, page belonging to co-founder of OpenXPKI project and the article's main author. Please consider Wikipedia:Userfication. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references. Nothing shows up on Google News. Nexus000 (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The single reference isn't enough to hang notability on. PianoDan (talk) 16:35, 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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales.

Notability on English Wikipedia does not always hinge upon whether or not something is "true", or factual. For example, note some of the entries at List of hoaxes. These articles include content about topics that are not literally true or factual in nature, but the topics are generally notable, relative to the topics themselves meeting various notability guidelines.

No prejudice against a speedy renomination that includes a valid rationale relative to Deletion policy. North America1000 20:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Republic of Eastport[edit]

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

Not a true "micronation", a joke: "tongue-in-cheek", "mock secession", "jocular". Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: Though it is not a "true micronation", Eastport is in fact an actual neighbourhood community of Annapolis, Maryland with about 2,500 residents. It is officially recognised as a neighbourhood by the Annapolis authority, and has been covered in reliable sources (like The Washington Post), which I believe passes the general notability for geographic features. I chose to establish this article in this way as the neighbourhood was best known for its claim as a micronation with several mentions of it in reliable publications. Though, if you would prefer, I could rephrase the article to reflect the micronation claim as less important than the community and neighbourhood itself (like changing the micronation infobox to settlement or something similar instead for starters) rather than resorting to deleting the whole article? (Like L'Anse-Saint-Jean, Quebec) – also I would like to add that there are a number of satirical/jocular micronations, like for instance Nutopia or the Kingdom of Wallachia. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 13:19, 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. Cabayi (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Lynn Calhoun[edit]

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

Subject is a model but fails to satisfy WP:NMODEL and generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources discussing the subject are unreliable as they mostly lack editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. This source is the closest to remotely being reliable but isn’t sufficient in establishing notability. A before search turns up nothing concrete. Furthermore the first x to achieve y isn’t a yardstick used in determining notability. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nommed. Had she not been tackled (how did she arrange that, I wonder?) and got some BLP1E coverage, there'd be nothing; now there's very close to nothing. Fails WP:GNG by a country mile. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NBIO Rogermx (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here is an "inherent" notability freebie that guarantees her inclusion in Wikipedia just because it's been asserted, but absolutely none of the sources are reliable ones for the purposes of getting her over WP:GNG for any of it. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:36, 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. Cabayi (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral[edit]

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

Church is not in and of itself notable, only being mentioned on the church's own website and in some very small photo captions on the Winnipeg Free Press. I was able to find one opinion piece on the Ukranian Christian community that mentions the cathedral in passing, but this doesn't provide much content outside of the fact that it exists. Proposing a deletion or possible merger with the page for Vancouver (even then I don't think it's particularly worth mentioning nor is it notable enough to grant much content). Deku link (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Deku link (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Deku link (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would be very hard for any church designated a cathedral not to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to be giving it a good try in this case, though. I'm finding it hard to discover supporting sources for a history that is only on the church's own WWW site. The tourist guides all point to the WWW site, and I don't think that "serves good pierogi on Fridays" is encyclopaedic. The only real source that I've turned up so far is Exploring Vancouver: The Architectural Guide which doesn't go into the history much, except to explain that for the majority of its lifetime this has not in fact been a cathedral. Uncle G (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Little church articles have come up for deletion before, and will again. I find it hard to believe that a unique piece of public architecture serving a community since 1949 is not notable. But then, notability is based on sources, not inherent qualities of things: Ukrainian church architecture is well documented on the Canadian Prairies, but not so much in BC. Maybe we need Ukrainian church architecture in Canada or List of Ukrainian churches in Canada, or some such, to capture these in a broader topic. —Michael Z. 16:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Found some stuff. Here’s an architecture guide with a full entry and photo:
    It also appears in a number of travel guides, and is mentioned in Kalman 1978, Exploring Vancouver 2: Ten Tours of the City and its Buildings, revised ed., p 180. The architect (w:uk:Тимошенко Сергій Прокопович) is notable by an entry in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine: “Tymoshenko, Serhii.” This book mentions the architect in several places, and calls this church one of “the most noteworthy of the churches in Canada”:
    • Keywan, Ivan (1984). Ukrainian Fine Arts. Essays from the History of Ukrainian Culture (in Ukrainian and English). Vol. 3. Edmonton, AB: Ukrainian Women’s Association of Canada. pp. 195–96.
     —Michael Z. 17:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have just edited and removed/reworded parts to clean up a promotional tag that still stood. I may have affected the notability. Sennecaster (What now?) 22:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If this were not a cathedral, I would unhesitatingly have voted to delete as a NN local church. Ukrainian Orthodox appears to be a small denomination in Canada with three dioceses and a total membership of nearly 90,000. If the decision is not to keep, it should be merged to the Ukrainian Orthodox Eparchy of Western Canada, which is the diocese, of which this is one of two cathedrals. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is recognised as a historically important building as shown here List of heritage buildings in Vancouver, and such buildings are usually included. Also, reliable book sources have been identified in this discussion so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  JGHowes  talk 01:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merritt Lamb[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The claims that he was the "founder of Scouting in West Michigan" and "the 13th Eagle Scout" in the U.S. are both unsourced. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. Mztourist (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just added a number of sources. It should now meet WP:GNG. There are more out there, and the article needs copyediting, but it should be kept. --evrik (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMO twice over, meeting both GNG and SNG. And this is not dependent on the two facts described in the nomination. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Not seeing much aside from local newspaper articles attesting to notability. I also did some cleanup on the article, including adding sources for the military career section, but remain unconvinced he has notability beyond West Michigan. Intothatdarkness 15:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ashleyyoursmile! 05:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The flaws in the article were addressed. The initial consensus was to keep. It is unnecessary to relist it twice. 19:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Disagree. There are still concerns about GNG in my view. The individual MIGHT be locally notable, but I don't think he's more than that. Intothatdarkness 21:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentGNG is about sourcing and does not require establishing outside-world famous-ness/notability. The SNG criteria provide an alternate "way in" and so per the guideline, the topic needs to satisfy only one of the two. Per my comment above, IMO it satisfies both, but, most relevant in this post is that meeting the sourcing criteria (GNG) alone is sufficient.North8000 (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFD has been open for almost a month with no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettlerhello • contribs 16:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added more sources:

--evrik (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Responding to note above, per the guideline, the finding here is to see if there is a consensus to delete. If there is no consensus to delete (or consensus for another such action) the result is the status quo which is keep. North8000 (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is clearly no consensus to delete. I gave up being an admin. If I was still an admin, I would just have closed this as 'Keep'. Could some admin end this long time discussion. --Bduke (talk) 00:29, 6 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.  JGHowes  talk 01:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vulnerable (Selena Gomez song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. No indication of notability except for four chart positions, of which the only official chart position is for Canada. The rest are barely top 100. The song has not received extensive review/coverage regarding its music and/or lyrics. Not enough material for a standalone article. HĐ (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is one good source, from Idolator called lost hit, it could be included on the alvum page for sure. The rest on the information comes from album reviews, interviews with the singer and a mention on a top 100 with no text to it. Charting is not an indication of notability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although short, the article isn't stub-length and is expandable with more coverage of the song from sources about the album. Additionally, its inclusion on a list of the best songs of 2020 by Idolator and Glamour, plus a Heavy.com article analyzing the lyrics of the song itself, plus the chart positions, gives it independent notability. Also, the nominator is seriously downplaying the significance of the chart positions to the point of erroneousness. All charts are official of their country; it's total nonsense they're unofficial just because the peaks aren't in the top 100. Entering the top 200 is just as difficult as the top 100. Also, while charting itself is not a definite indication of notability, it damn f---ing sure strongly adds to it. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with what HumanxAnthro said. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it looks like HĐ was trying to say that the Canadian chart included (Canadian Hot 100) was the only primary chart of a nation listed as opposed to a component chart (and primary charts are far more important because they actually represent overall popularity within a country unlike components), though am pretty sure this is the main thing for Portugal. For the record, the main charts for New Zealand and the US are respectively NZ Official Top 40 singles and Billboard Hot 100, not New Zealand Hot Singles or Bubbling Under Hot 100. In any case, numbers reached there are irrelevant to notability or whether charts are official. Just thought this bit of clarity would help. I did find another Idolator piece specifically focusing on the track, but a brief passing mention from this isn't enough to count towards notability. While the Glamour piece linked above offers more depth for its "best songs of 2020" list than Idolator does, I would prefer more than just a cumulative paragraph. With that said, I guess it comes down to whether we can trust Heavy.com (I'm not sure how credible that publication is). Either way, album reviews don't count towards notability for songs. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would still consider charts like "Bubbling Under" and "NZ Hot Singles" to be significant given how difficult they are to enter. There are 24,000 to 60,000 tracks released daily, yet only 200 or 100 or 50 will make it to an official top chart of a country weekly. The only thing bubbling under charts do is give the songs 20 to 25 more chances to make it, which is saying absolutely nothing. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 👨x🐱 --K. Peake 07:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am absolutely for splitting album articles into tracks if it gets so extensive with coverage about the writing and composition and production of certain songs it gets WP:TOOBIG. I've proposed this for Swift's folklore, and we already do this for every Beatles studio album ever. Looking at the article about the album which this song is from, Rare, although well-cited, it's pretty small in comparison to Folklore and I don't know if that is because it's non-comprehensive. I wouldn't mind merging the song into the album as well if the album can fit it, but I would also say to have that article list all the chart positions of non-album tracks as well (and singles if you want to list those) because those are still official charts. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article is backed by enough media coverage and she even has a collection on her multi-millionaire make up brand named after the track [22]. The song has also managed to reach main charts as in Canada and Portugal, plus I think we shouldn't underestimate its presence in Bubbling Under (at the end of the day is the continuation of Billboard Hot 100) or Hot Singles charts as there are articles of songs that haven't even managed to charts. What gives a song more notability than actually selling enough to appear on any kind of chart? Anonpediann (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that entering any charts by itself inherently equates to notability is a common misconception. WP:NSONGS specifically says charting indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable. Don't treat "may be" as a synonym for "is". What truly matters per WP:NSONGS is whether any publications not affiliated with the artist cover the track in pieces that aren't album reviews, and not just brief mentions (e.g. a cumulative paragraph or less isn't enough). Commentary from artists themselves or involved labels, producers, or songwriters discussing the works don't count towards notability because that's just self-promotion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Commentary from artists themselves or involved labels, producers, or songwriters discussing the works don't count towards notability because that's just self-promotion." That is total nonsense. I could understand if it's WP:PRIMARY sources doing this, like an Album commenterary, Twitter posts from the artist, or liner notes, but if independent secondary sources are the ones interviewing, that is so not true. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rare (Selena Gomez album). The only thing "worth" creating an article for this song is the two reviews (the composition is just a repeat of the info in the album article, the credits are irrelevant, and the charts are already in the discography). However, only one of the two is not in the context of an album review. Even with the reviews, there's only two, which is certainly not worth creating an article for, and could be incorporated in the album article (or not). Also, charting on the Canadian Hot 100 is really not that hard; Billie Eilish's "!!!!!!!" somehow charted at number 79 despite being 14 seconds long; it's a joke. Charting is not coverage, and you need coverage for an article. Heartfox (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "charting on the Canadian Hot 100 is really not that hard" I seriously hope you're being sarcastic. Billie Ellish has a different level of elite notability 99.9999% of artists don't have, so of course it would be easy for her to get "!!!!!!!" on the Hot 100. Users need to stop downplaying the significance of official charts from major recorders of data like Nielsen Soundscan, because it is based in an ignorance of the music industry and more on casual hearsay. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is just because something charted doesn't mean it warrants an article. Heartfox (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will keep debunking this myth because too many users are spreading it around. Charts are still as HARD if not HARDER to enter than in the past. The fact that Soundcloud, social media platforms and consumer-accessible digital audio workstations added changes nothing; it's only saturated the market further and made even harder to gain streams and views, with algorithms controlled by bigger companies moreso now than ever. This is all based in evidence, especially as Billboard has decreased how dependent streaming is in their charts' methodology so that radio play and sales play a far bigger role, and the accessibility of self-releasing and making music has only made it more difficult to get on the charts. Anecdotes about this one artist and this other artist getting their song popular and viral at random debunk f---all, and we need to stop being ignoramuses about the music industry. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ashleyyoursmile! 04:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rare (Selena Gomez album). The song did receive some independent coverage, but I do not believe it crosses over into significant coverage. I generally love seeing album tracks get articles (and I actually really like this song in particular), but I believe this has only received a limited amount of coverage, and this information can be discussed within the main album article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Most Magical Celebration[edit]

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

One sentence article for a Disney marketing slogan. The only source is an article/press release from a Disney corporate blog. Delete as non-notable per WP:EVENT. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, right now there's just no coverage. Until sources independent of Disney start covering it, it'll go nowhere except being a promotional stub. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 05:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't even the name. This is a promotional slogan, for an event that is in the future, and that is not independently nor thoroughly documented. Uncle G (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vaticidalprophet 13:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete' This is strictly a business promotion. At the very most, it could be mentioned in the Disney theme park articles. Rogermx (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:SPAM CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that GNG is met 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Friends: Misty Island Rescue[edit]

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

A minor Thomas and Friends movie that doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The recently added review (thank you Donaldd23) is the only reliable one I can find via Google searches and is the only one listed at Rotten Tomatoes. So this subject fails both WP:FILM and WP:GNG. Laplorfill (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Laplorfill (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Found another review, but not sure if DVD Dizzy is considered a WP:RS. [[23]] Donaldd23 (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Won't we have to get rid of the rest of the Thomas movie articles then (minus Magic Railroad, of course)? --Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, each article is judged on its own merits with consideration to the amount of reliable sources coverage for each one, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well as the two reviews including Common Sense Media which is used as a critic at Rotten Tomatoes I found a full length review at Blu-ray.com here so WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think it passes WP:GNG, surely not WP:FILM. The Blue-ray.com review does not pass as significant coverage in my opinion. I found this [[24]], which does struck as reliable or significant either. Kolma8 (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - found reviews in The New Zealand Herald and The British Railway Stories, both of which appear to be reliable and independent and constitute significant coverage. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think enough reviews have been found and mentioned at this point (five by my count) to pass WP:NFILM. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:11, 6 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. Missvain (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korhan Basaran[edit]

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

I am aware I may be missing something as sources will mainly be in Turkish. I couldn't find the coverage though to show this can meet WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years - hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Combination of sources already in the article and what I've managed to find on my own: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. More Turkish sources do exist, but I think they are unreliable. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 17:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm slightly leaning towards delete, but there's also enough sources that mentions the person (although there's not a detailed coverage based on the person as far I see). In addition to Styyx, I've found those news: [30] [31] Ahmetlii (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 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 08:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Augustinian Abbey School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since this a private school the article has to be up to the notability standards of WP:NORG. Which it clearly isn't due to it only containing a single trivial reference and what little else is out there about it also being extremely trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: In this particular case I'm mostly going with the whole "schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both" part of WP:NSCHOOL. Since we are talking about a school that is K-12, but only has 750 students (which is only like 60 students per grade level) in a place with a population of almost 600,000. So I doubt it's anything more then support for more mainstream schools there. I admit that there's probably some leeway allowed there though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is zero news coverage. What makes this school any more special than every other private school? I just don’t see enough evidence of notability on any level. Star7924 (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My searches find nothing beyond routine coverage; nothing sufficient to meet the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:22, 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 keep. Going with keeps. Please improve with provided sources. Missvain (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boozefighters[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for years. There is no inherent notability in this line of business, there are no reliable secondary sources attesting to the importance of the organization--nor can I find any. Not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would an emeritus Professor of Criminal Justice at Eastern Kentucky University suffice? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm I'd rather have a set of articles and book chapters from reliable sources providing in-depth discussion of the subject. Or, barring that, a box of Merci chocolates. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Below are some sources and access to sources:
It would take some time to go through each book and news source from these search results to discern the level of coverage in each one, and whether or not it is significant or below the threshold of significant coverage. This is due in part to preview availability being inconsistent at times. Hence my commenting here at this time, rather than !voting. Any takers? "What do you got?
– North America1000 16:15, 18 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 00:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First page of search gets an Amazon link to that 288 page book [32], I'm in. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A historic, international organization, notable and notorious, and as shown above, with sources to prove it. Alan Islas (talk) 04:55, 7 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. Feel free to improve the article and return to AfD if needed. If you propose redirecting, please do so on the appropriate talk page. Missvain (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fame Looks at Music '83[edit]

Fame Looks at Music '83 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One concert episode of a larger show is just not notable at all. We would need very strong sourcing to justify this content fork, and we do not have that. AfD is a hard enough process to initiatie, we need to actual consider and think over a proposal, not engage in preemptive exclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or indeed, preemptive deletion. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, sources added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further scrutiny required, especially in light of newly added references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs further discussion - no consensus for any of the proposals so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 06:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Falls High School[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. This is a pretty obscure school. I'm pretty uneasy about nominating a Public High school for deletion, but I'm struggling to find any evidence of independent coverage. The only solid evidence I could find was a newspaper story in Montana. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's trivial run of the mill news articles about things like who won prom queen and the students returning to classes after COVID. From what I can tell there's nothing available that discusses the school directly and in-depth though. So it clearly fails the notability guidelines as a subject. Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of sourcing available, as with any other American high school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that lots of dependent coverage in local sources exist, but little independent coverage. 95% of the reliable sources I found were local. Others were only trivial. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RfC recently that determined the relevant notability guidelines for high schools is WP:NORG. Although it still sorta depends on if it's a public or private school though. Public schools are treated a little loser then private ones. Which are usually treated the same as any other type of company/organization. Something like a single primary source or just a name drop in a independent directory doesn't cut it for either though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Redoryxx, There is a historical note at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: At one time, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG. The relevant policy explanation is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. Note that GNG does not require regional or national sources, but a requirement of ORG is WP:AUD. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. I think I was able to find a source in Montana during my initial WP:BEFORE check, but now I am unable to find it. All I can find now is a one-paragraph story on Newspapers.com. @Grand'mere Eugene: Could you point to me to where it says that WP:GNG does not require national or regional sources. I can't believe I forgot about WP:AUD. If this means that one regional independent source satisfies WP:ORG, I will happily withdraw the nomination if someone can provide proof. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grand'mere Eugene and Adamant1 thank you both. This is what I was looking for but wasn't able to find it myself. There are guidelines for most everything, so I had a feeling it'd be somewhere. Appreciate it. Redoryxx (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added a bit with sources that meet GNG. Scorpions13256, there are five bullet points under WP:GNG, and none of the bullet points mention regional or national sources. In contrast, WP:ORG does require WP:AUD, and private schools are specifically required to meet ORG in addition to GNG requirements. Public institutions may meet either set of requirements (either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline), and GNG does not specify the AUD requirement. But you may only withdraw this nomination if there are no delete !votes. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help Grand'mere Eugene. That source in the Idaho Statesman does seem to indicate that WP:ORG is met. I did not come across it in my WP:BEFORE. Also, the wording in that policy claiming that private schools need to meet both WP:ORG and WP:GNG was confusing. Should I reword it to specifically say that both guidelines need to be met? Scorpions13256 (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scorpions13256, I agree the language is a bit confusing. In the sentence For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria, "for profit educational organizations" is equivalent to private schools, which must meet both GNG and ORG. But public schools do not operate at a profit, so a public school like American Falls is not required to meet ORG requirements. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), public institutions may meet either GNG or ORG. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"for profit institutions" are not the same as private schools. Most private schools in the US are non-profit institutions. Any religious school is, and a large number of private non-religious schools are as well. So the thousands of Lutheran, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish and many other religious schools are all non-profit. "for profit" is not by any stretch of the imagination the same as private. The line being drawn is not between public and private, it is between for profit and non-fprofit. However I think this line makes a lot more sense at the tertiary level. There are very few secondary for-profit institutions in the US. The most common occuarance that is close to that is charter schools, which in some cases are operated by for-profit institutions. However they operate with a specific charter from the government, so the issue is very complex. I would note that this article was very, very pporly written. It made a reference to "an official from Moscow State University" which was clearly actually a reference to an official from the University of Idaho.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @Johnpacklambert: I stand corrected on the npn-profit/private issue, thanks. On the reference to "an official from Moscow State University", that was what the source said, and on newspapers.com there are many more references to Moscow State University until about 1928, when news of the Russian Moscow State University became predominant, but "State University" was still used in reporting local sports scores, for example. What's interesting is that there was a struggle between the northern Idaho community of Haley and the Moscow interests who eventually won out. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last comment relects why we need editors who understand the topic. We need to write in a way that a modern reader understands the topic, not slavishly follow the wording in old sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I also found a newspaper archive for The Power County Press and will be adding content from sources there to the article. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and most of the sources are primary or passing mentions. Star7924 (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the purposes of Wikipedia newspaper sources are considered secondary, and this is where most of the sources come from. We have enough sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New sources have been added. MB (talk) 13:29, 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 Draftify. Consensus was to move this article to Draft: (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Walker[edit]

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

Article suffers from WP:CRYSTAL. There are a number of references about Tyson Walker but all of them appeared WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:NCOLLATH. Chirota (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the Tyson Walker page should not be deleted because it causes not harm to anything or anyone, has the proper sources mentioned, and has no glaring mistakes. The page took a long time to make and deleting it would wipe away all that hard work. He is also part of the media due to his transfer of to Michigan State. He has becoming more and more known by basketball fans and deserves a wiki page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanrschroeder (talk • contribs)
    @Deanrschroeder: Please remember that WP:NOHARM is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Please also remember that WP:GNG requires substantial coverage, not just WP:ROUTINE ones that report box scores and transactions. The article currently contains 3 sources: one is essentially a paraphrased press release, another is a player profile page and the third is a stats page. Ytoyoda (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your complaints and I understand them, but I feel that there are other options instead of deletions. I see that there is a wiki page on other options other than deletion and I feel that the article can enter these options. Also, I used Cassius Winston and Joey Hauser wiki as sort of a template for this article so any reference problems I have would be similar to their wikis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanrschroeder (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deanrschroeder: I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out that your response will likely not convince anyone who's been through AfD discussions. And when you clicked on WP:NOHARM, you probably saw that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also an argument that will not get very far. Cassius Winston is a former Big 10 Player of the Year and an NBA draft pick, and has received substantially more coverage than Walker has. It's debatable whether Joey Hauser meets WP:GNG, but there's probably just enough coverage to get him over the line. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will argue that the the recent transfer news about him are not routine, they go into the subject in detail [33][34][35]. However, he still needs WP:SUSTAINED coverage to pass WP:GNG. So if there are good sources about him from the last few years (like this for example) then I would lean to pass. Alvaldi (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not appear to be notable yet. Suggest draftification to incubate until such time as he's drafted or is otherwise notable. StarM 02:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There doesn't appear to be any clear consensus yet; although current arguments against keeping this (in mainspace, at least) seem to be stronger. Has anybody considered any other WP:ATD, such as redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • RandomCanadian he hasn't played for Michigan State and isn't mentioned at Christ the King, so I don't think a redirect is helpful to the reader. Draft with edits related to his play to keep six month timer going until he's notable preserves the content. That's why I still lean draft. StarM 16:13, 20 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) 02:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am for draftification. He is close to having notable coverage, since there are a few articles that start to go a bit more in-depth than routine coverage, but I don't think he is quite there yet. I don't think that a redirect to his previous schools is helpful either, for the reasons stated by Star Mississippi. Draftification seems the best solution to preserve the work of the page creator so that the page can be moved once Walker reaches notability (which he likely will). Mukedits (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with drafting the article. Alvaldi (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft the article. Seems to be a somewhat notable basketball player, though not yet notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Coverage seems to be mostly routine at this point. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 01:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I agree with Alvaldi that the transfer coverage does go into detail but is not sufficiently sustained to meet GNG. He has a good chance of garnering more SIGCOV in the near future. JoelleJay (talk) 04:55, 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 delete. Tone 12:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah, Georgia, in popular culture[edit]

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

Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. Despite the seemingly impressive number of sources, the vast majority are to IMDb, and there are none that are about the actual topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was established because of a discussion on the original Savannah, Georgia page regarding the length of the article. The compromise was to create several pages including this page. Recommend keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolon (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only reliable sources included here are not about the topic of Savannah in popular culture, but simply information about the history of the city itself. There are no sources that actually discuss the concept of this toopic, nor are there any that talk about the entries here as a group or set, thus failing WP:LISTN. Many of the entries here are pure trivia ("Savanah was mentioned in this episode") or simply listings of things that were filmed in Savannah. Rorshacma (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile, Alabama, in popular culture[edit]

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

Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Like the many other "City in Popular Culture" lists up for AFD right now, this is nothing but a list of trivia that is devoid of reliable sources. There are only two sources that could be potentially be considered reliable, and they are not even supporting any of the actual items on the list or information on popular culture, being information on the real life history of the city. Rorshacma (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Discussion has remained stalemated over an extended period of time, and there is no reason to expect any further extension of time to yield a consensus. Editors !voting to keep make a well-reasoned argument that sources discussing the subject city's place in pop culture suffice to meet the WP:GNG. Structural issues that are fixable are beyond the purview of AfD. BD2412 T 03:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco in popular culture[edit]

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

Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. Even if this topic meets WP:GNG, there is no encyclopedic content worth keeping (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, on a similar list that got replaced by an encyclopedic overview), not least because the Category:San Francisco in fiction tree contains hundreds of articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are just huge lists of things with almost no explanation here, and the few explanations are clearly nonsense. For example: Star Trek: Voyager, a television show set in the future and on a space ship inaccessibly far away across the Milky Way does not "highlight the city". Buried among the useless and misleading lists are a few short paragraphs explaining why television shows are not shot on location there, the only informative content in the whole article. Uncle G (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uncle G: Despite first appearances, the future San Francisco does feature in episodes of Star Trek: Voyager (five to be exact, as the nice persons from Memory Alpha have counted for us here), with the usual Star Trek time and space shenanigans, and the ship finally getting back to Earth in the end. For example this short review praises "Non Sequitur" with what translates as "especially good is also the San Francisco of the future". Of course ideally this should be spelled out based on secondary sources, but that can be done. Daranios (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to be part of yet another round of cookie-cutter, drive-by nominations without a trace of WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE or WP:CIVIL. The nomination is ostensibly based on WP:IINFO but that's ridiculous because that is itself an indiscriminate ragbag of arbitrary exclusions such as software logs, none of which apply. The topic here is actually quite specific and not indiscriminate at all. Then there's WP:INPOPULARCULTURE which is just an essay – some OR prejudice with no official standing. And then there's some other stuff but Maine is not San Francisco is it? San Francisco is a cultural centre – a massive influence with corresponding coverage which the nomination fails to address. Here's some examples:
  1. Acid trips, black power and computers: how San Francisco’s hippy explosion shaped the modern world
  2. Popular Culture on the Golden Shore
  3. The Essential Guide to San Francisco Pop Culture
  4. San Francisco: A Cultural and Literary History
  5. Top 12 Bay Area cultural milestones of the decade
  6. Hollywood in San Francisco
  7. Which TV shows would make it into the San Francisco Hall of Fame?
  8. 10 Movies Filmed in San Francisco That Defined '90s Pop Culture
  9. Consuming Identities: visual culture in nineteenth-century San Francisco
  10. How San Francisco broke America’s heart
Note that Wikipedia itself is now headquartered in this city. Me, I live in London which is another cultural capital. When I visited SF, one of the places I went to was the highest point which has some personal signficance as it's called Mount Davidson. But the most outstanding thing up there is the Easter cross. I already knew this well because it appears in Dirty Harry. "It's a question of methods. Everybody wants results, but nobody wants to do what they have to do to get them done." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, per WP:IINFO, fails further WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom's rationale, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Onel5969 TT me 15:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As shown by the sources found, the topic fulfills WP:GNG. The fact that the article currently is not in good shape is not a reason for deletion. WP:INPOPULARCULTURE gives guidelines how to trim this so that it does not fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Some of what is present would remain in this case, and some would be thrown out. Which is what can be decided using secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Mixed feelings here; the topic is indisputably notable, but the article is a shitty indiscriminate list of movies and films, etc. The three sources provided are absolutely garbage. It could be deleted on WP:TNT grounds, and hopefully that would encourage someone to recreate it on better footing. If it is kept, it would be worthy of stubbing and getting a substantial rewrite. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A prose article could possibly be written about the topic, though even then I have my doubts - of the multitude of sources presented above, only a couple are actually on the topic, and most of them are not from reliable sources. That possibility does not mean this terrible list of unsourced trivia should remain in the main article space in the meantime. There is absolutely no content in the current list that should actually be kept in any form. If someone wants to draftify this in order to work on a complete overhaul, they're welcome to, but the article in its current state should not remain in the meantime. Rorshacma (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and prune. There are multiple [at least marginally] notable list topics here: films set in San Francisco, books set in San Francisco, TV shows set in San Francisco, etc. This page serves to keep them all together, which isn't necessarily a bad thing unless it sprawls. A clear inclusion criteria can help that. I suspect that the individual episodes and video games should be axed, for example. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I think this one actually does meet WP:LISTN since the entries on the list are individually notable. Perhaps the article could be renamed to "List of....". Could also be split into pages such as "List of Movies and Television shows that take place in San Francisco" and "List of San Francisco Literature", or something similar.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Think of the readers. Nobody is going to be looking for this. A simpler more scalable solution would be to add the Category:San_Francisco_in_popular_culture to every article on this list. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 05:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split – Rusf10 is correct in applying WP:LISTN ("no present consensus for how to assess the notability..." and "Notability of lists (whether titled as 'List of Xs' or 'Xs') is based on the group."). WP:INPOPULARCULTURE talks about popular culture sections within articles which tend to clutter location related articles – this listing serves to avoid such clutter. Likewise, the listing complies with MOS:POPCULT because it avoids the "section within an article" problem. What should the split articles contain? WP:LISTCRITERIA says "When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself if any the following are true: ... Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?" The spilt titles might say List of films and TV series set in San Francisco, List of films and TV series shot in San Francisco, List of fiction set in San Francisco, and/or Bibliography of San Francisco. Such titles would help avoid the "indiscriminate" problem and allow for editing in terms of referencing. – S. Rich (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Next to talking about popular culture sections within articles, WP:INPOPULARCULTURE also explicitly refers to splitting out such sections into their own articles when warranted by the amount of information here. Daranios (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While San Francisco definitely has a rich cultural impact, this list of anything and everything the city has appeared in for even a moment is not constructive. This would be better suited as prose, and the article as it stands is a lot of unsourced original research trivia. I don't think it should stay in the article mainspace, as it's entirely unpresentable, but it could possibly be overhauled in draft form, per the points brought up by Rorshacma. Waxworker (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the highly reasonable and policy based argument by Andrew Davidson. WP:INPOPULARCULTURE is an opinion essay with no standing in policy based decisions at AFD. The topic is well defined, and not indiscriminate. Further, it would clearly pass WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. The delete votes are purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinions. Srich32977 makes a valuable split argument, but that's really an editorial decision, and not one that should be made here at AFD but at Talk:San Francisco in popular culture where editors can discuss the matter in detail and without the time clock of an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 22:08, 11 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. Cabayi (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pickyourtrail[edit]

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

I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. This article in The Hindu Business Line is a blatant promotion of the website, which makes me believe that the other The Hindu article might be sponsored too. The article was created by a user who is banned for spam/advertising (Also see the deletion log of PickYourTrail and Pickyourtrail.com). M4DU7 (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so there can be a firmer deletion consensus given concerns about article's creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 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. Tone 12:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Believers Church Residential School, Thiruvalla[edit]

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

A private educational insitution without any reliable independent sources to establish GNG. Nothing useful were found on doing a WP:Before. Bringing this again to AFD because this was previously kept as a procedural keep due to involvement of sockpuppetry.Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I could find is a single source about someone that goes to the school and only contains trivial information about it. There's nothing in-depth that passes the notability guidelines from what I can tell though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given comment by non-sock in the last (recent) discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 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 08:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charis School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A non-notable school. SBKSPP (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find anything about it and the sources in the article are either primary or trivial blog posts. So unless someone can find WP:THREE references that it's possible I just missed then I'm strongly leaning toward delete. Especially since it's a private school. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zéro current news, no reliable sources. Citations just go to way back machine weak posts. Star7924 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no non-trivial secondary coverage is to be found. Fails the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:56, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The London Theatre – New Cross[edit]

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

A 30-50 seat theatre. Google news isn't returning any coverage I can find. There are no refs in the article. Tagged advert since 2011. Note the first AfD ended Keep based upon a series of references which actually aren't references - they are internal WP links. Desertarun (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just looking at it, is seems that people at the last discussion did not even know what they were talking about. This is not a cinema, it is a live production theatre, with no sources. Not every theatre is notable, and we need actual reliable sources which are entirely lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasoning stated above, and because it fails WP:GNG. The previous AfD discussion resulted in a keep decision, however I can't seem to find any sources that constitute signification coverage to allow this to stay. The only sources I found were these two [36] [37], the first one is a list of upcoming shows, and the second is a listicle of which only a few sentences are about the theatre in question. The website linked in this article doesn't talk about the theatre at all, except for its title. HoneycrispApples (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Police Rugby League Association[edit]

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

Twinkle aborted my PROD because this already went thru an AfD (I only checked the page history) so here we are again. There's no secondary coverage of this league at all, the only two sources are primary. A WP:BEFORE search brought up very little. SportingFlyer T·C 20:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-professional sports association, so there's no reason to think it would be notable Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 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.

This is an association. Was the Rugby League project notified?Fleets (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saintgits College of Engineering[edit]

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

A private, tertiary, degree non-awarding institution which has no inherent notability and does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS as no WP:RS satisfying ORGDEPTH was found with a WP:BEFORE. I have cleaned up the advertising cruft. The previous AFD did not address these core issues and hence the renomination. VV 12:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. VV 12:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 12:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. VV 12:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 12:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We just had a keep consensus in March, so more discussion is needed before a delete consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I'm going with the keeps on this one. Feel free to improve the article with the many sources presented. (And you can use primary sources - but sparingly, of course!) Missvain (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Rock[edit]

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

This BLP has been sitting at the back of the NPP queue for many weeks. The subject might be notable but it looks pretty doubtful to me and I think we’re in BLPIE territory. Bringing it here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can’t find anything that suggests notability --Devokewater 19:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic WP:BLP1E as described bu User:NZFC below. The sound of the bottom of the notability barrel being scraped is clear. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your rationale is basically "because I don't like it" 98.42.61.224 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have any COI on this topic? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not affiliated with this person in any way. Do you have a personal vendetta against him?98.42.61.224 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Try-hard social media wannabes don't deserve to be considered notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, so you do have a personal vendetta against him. Got it. Try giving actual reasons instead of using personal attacks against him. 98.42.61.224 (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've actually come across the YouTube channel, and wanting to know more, found nothing. People doing this tend to avoid having information about them known, and even the YouTube personae are not independently documented. These people aren't known in the form of biographies at all. Uncle G (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep https://boingboing.net/2021/03/25/karl-rock-goes-to-dubai-to-chat-with-low-level-scammers.html https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/nz-youtuber-karl-rock-reveals-the-trick-he-used-to-impress-his-haryanvi-jat-girlfriends-parents-2918405.html 98.42.61.224 (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of those is a biography, and they are almost devoid of any biographical detail. Indeed, the sum total of the informational content of the first is in the URL. Where is a biography of this person, documenting xyr life/work? Failing that, where is a detailed independent source documenting the YouTube persona in detail? Uncle G (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mostly relies on primary sources. Next to no significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Throast (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article did not help his case with primary sources, trivial mentions, unreliable sources, and many links which don't work, but Google News appears to have a lot of significant coverage on him. Given how small New Zealand is, it is almost inevitable that anyone with 1.42 millions subscribers who is a New Zealander in India will get coverage by New Zealand's local news outlets and India's outlets because of the novelty.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion is needed to gather consensus on whether the links given by Nexus000 show notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Mccapra and Devokewater—do your comments still stand in light of the links given by Nexus000? Are any of those sources reliable, independent and in-depth? — Bilorv (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This really is unusual. The sources highlighted by Nexus000 probably aren’t all reliable but most of them are. The thing is they all say what is already in the article. There’s a guy from NZ living in India who has Youtube channel who gave blood once, and some other pretty insignificant things. I suggested BLP1E would apply in this case because there is so little substance to the topic, but the number of sources all saying the same few things may mean that’s not valid. Mccapra (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a popular YouTube channel; and, as I noted above, would that someone had written about xem in depth! But no-one seems to have put in the effort of doing so. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Bilorv (talk) I will take a look at these. Regards --Devokewater 08:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it satisfies both WP:BASIC and WP:GNG as per the existence of reliable secondary sources. Roulisegee (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC) — Roulisegee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete This is WP:BLP1E, while I commend Nexus000 for finding all those links they all just relate back to one real event. Looking at BLP1E criteria, the person is only covered in context of a single event, is likely to remain a low-profile individual and the event isn't substantial or well documented (as pointed out, some even just reference what is on Wikipedia now itself). Then even the creator of the page hasn't made a comment since it was nominated for deletion. NZFC(talk)(cont) 01:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:BASIC with the sources indicated by Nexus000. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Including the one, as I had pointed out before that list was compiled, had no content beyond what was in its URL? How many others are like that, do you think? I picked the stuff.co.nz one at random and it contained no factual information about Karl Rock whatsoever. It was written by Karl Rock and about something else. That list was created by search engine phrase matching, not reading. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uncle G, of course, including the ones indicated below. So, don't bother arguing with me. My keep stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly a WP:BLP1E known for some insignificant events. The problem is that now a days every viral YouTube video is covered by the media to fill their digits pages, that why there is a rise in YouTuber biographies. defcon5 (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus that WP:GNG is met. However, consensus has yet to develop as to whether the topic surpasses WP:BLP1E
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak KeepHe's covered by multiple reliable sources in India. As for BLP1E, I understand that reasoning, but believe there is lasting coverage, he continues to have stories written about him more than 6 months later.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A non notable youtuber from India who fails GNG. This comes under BLPE1. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 23:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this a third relist in hopes that the BLP1E element will receive more discussion and thus a clear consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He has been mentioned a few times for a few different things when you break down all the links, I still feel however it is very artifical in that its just taken to write a story about whatever his video was about. Nothing in depth of Karl himself. All I've learnt is he used to work in IT, he had a india girlfriend and learnt hindi and then moved to India. So now makes videos about it. If that is enough with these stories that are just about his videos, then fine but I don't think it meets WP:GNG myself and still vote delete.NZFC(talk)(cont) 22:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Probably the article with the most about Karl, telling how he speaks hindi and is travelling/living in India
  2. Next best article introducting him after plasma went viral, again doens't say a lot of indepth about Karl still
  3. Just a bit about him travelling and why he is in India
  4. Story about donating plasma
  5. Racist attack and blurb about donating plasma
  6. Mentions the Humans of Delhi story about trying to impress girlfriends parents and blurb about the plasma
  7. A paragrath saying he lives in India but went to Dubai to confront scammers then a link to his video
  8. Karl is in Pakistan and talks to a young boy
  9. What happens next will surprise you.... title and its a nothing story. He was riding where he shouldn't by mistake but left off with a warning
  10. Only brief mentions by name in articles
  11. His own first person account of how to travel in india
  12. More to check out still but seems to be more of the same, more on his moving on to busting scams
  • Keep - while I might think it mildly depressing that this person has so much coverage, since the primary dispute point is on whether the article avoids failing BLP1E. I have to say it does. That's on three main points: the coverage is on a couple of different things; the coverage is over a reasonable length of time; and the coverage is somewhat about his youtube channel, which is inherently not really an "event". Nosebagbear (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Going with the keeps on this one. Please improve the article using sources provided! Missvain (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Deutsch[edit]

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

Fails NSINGER and GNG, was submitted through AfC and was declined before being moved to articlespace by creator. Noah 💬 21:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erik Deutsch is a great musician who most definitely qualifies under wikipedias guidelines. I have followed wiki musician guidelines and after the draft was refused, I revised and updated it so that had supported content and citations. My aim on wiki is to create articles for musicians who have created a body of original work over a long period of time. these are musicians without representation. After waiting almost 3 months for the re submission to be reviewed (after waiting many months for the original draft to be reviewed), I decided today to move forward to place it as an article. Mistephake (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • re: following up on notability
    Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]
    YES
    I've listed multiple respected reviews, features in top music journals in the artists field listed below newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
    Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
    NO Performances listed but dates referencing to his important professional collaborations are listed to support notability
    Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4]
    YES: Mexico and the US
    Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
    YES
    Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)
    YES Charlie Hunter (3 yrs), Leftover Salmon (4yrs), The Chicks (2020-present)
    as become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
    YES The opening part of the article primarily focuses on subjects impact on his local community in Colorado: After completing his degree from CU in piano performance, Deutsch stayed in Boulder developing a busy career as a performer and teacher. County Road X, a cinematic Americana ensemble, released two records during this period, County Road X (2002) and From Seed to Stone (2004). Triangle, a piano trio led by Deutsch's musical mentor Art Lande (on drums), released Three Sides to a Question in 2004. He taught and accompanied students frequently and was an adjunct faculty member at the Naropa University.
    Since 2015, Deutsch has hosted a weekly bi-lingual radio show called the Sounds of Brooklyn and Beyond with co-host Sara Valenzuela. The program airs on Jalisco Radio in Guadalajara, Puerto Vallarta, and Ciudad Guzman and is available as a podcast on iTunes and Spotify.
    thank you for allowing me to support the notability of this subject. I believe i have provided enough material to support the inclusion of this article. . if i am missing anything that would help I would gladly welcome knowledge of it and edit the article to meet the criteria Mistephake (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability is not inherited from the notable artists this musician has worked with. Fails WP:GNG. Also depressing that the picture currently decorating the article is ©2016 ShowLove Media || All rights reserved || Photo by John-Ryan Lockman, now up for deletion on Commons Fiddle Faddle 09:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think his notability is defined by his work as a solo artist. I'm not basing the article on his notability being inherited. The reviews and feature articles on his work should be suitable proof. Mistephake (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as the photo goes, I had the photographer upload and choose the license for that image. I don't know what happened there. Mistephake (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cite 5: Odell, Jennifer (May 2012). "CD Reviews". Downbeat Magazine. Vol. 75 no. 5. p. 50.
    • Cite 6: Gilbert, Andrew. "When Musical Cultures Collide". The Boston Globe. Retrieved November 29, 2009.
    • Cite 14: Alain, Drouot (March 2017). "Reviews". Downbeat Magazine. Vol. 84 no. 3. p. 67.
  • These are all national journals, major newspaper feature articles on the subject Mistephake (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. proven notability are his reviews in downbeat http://www.downbeat.com/digitaledition/2017/DB1703/single_page_view/67.html and feature in the boulder weekly citing his contributions to the CO jazz scene https://www.boulderweekly.com/entertainment/erik-deutsch-splits-difference/ Mistephake (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The walls of text from the author will delay my review, but my experience has been that articles that are supported by excessively long statements are usually not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - The article, in its current form, does not show that the subject satisfies the musical notability criteria. This does not mean that the subject does not satisfy the criteria based on achievements not in the article, and it does not mean that the subject satisfies the criteria based on achievements no in the article. However, the article should speak for itself to the reader, and does not do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:BASIC and WP:GNG based on coverage by reliable secondary sources such as https://www.nashvillescene.com/music/article/13058368/nashville-expat-erik-deutsch-takes-jazz-into-outlaw-country and reviews in the Denver Post https://theknow.denverpost.com/2018/10/31/jazz-erik-deutschs-mingus/199474/ on his new release. Roulisegee (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC) — Roulisegee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: Topic is notable citing reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the subject fails WP:NMUSIC. Riteboke (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it would be hard for a closer to do anything but a "no consensus" based on current arguments, some say GNG is met, others say it isn't. Neither side supports their position very well. However WP:GNG is clearly met, by reliable sources already in the article which provide independent, in-depth coverage. Examples include [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. The Downbeat and Boston Globe are of particular significance. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:56, 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 Draftify. Tone 12:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nazargunj[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, most citations are either fake or contain passing reference. Also spam and advertisement websites are used, see here:

  • [44] this is a tourism advertisement website.
  • [45], this talks about Darjeeling tea, and why its here, disgusting.
  • [46], this is some caste website, non independent poor source.
  • [47], it mention in only one or two sentence, not the estate but a person and word Nazarganj is used, so editor has put it as source.
  • [48], someone has google searched and this book has one result for Gope and they used it as source. The article is a personal opinion and fake citations are used. Reviewing admin could also check. Also google search donot give extensive quality source.
  • [49], this has a passing mention, but not enough for separate article. As I suggested in my previous nomination, one article containing all such minor estate had been a good idea. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page “Nazargunj” should be deleted as it suffers from a host of inaccuracies and repeat edits from the same Unreliable sources. As the original Author of this page, over the years I have attempted to correct and keep the content objective while welcoming any genuine additions to the subject.
    However, it seems to suffer from repeated attempts to rewrite history and make links to Yadavs (who are not relations of any sort and have different last names to the Nazargunj family (lall chaudhuri) anyway.
    Another edit puts repeated emphasis on a meeting organised to host Gandhi but the editor then drifts off to detail that event with incredibly poor grammar. It seems to lose focus on the article subject of Nazargunj while also deleting other objectively sourced points on the Raja of Nazargunj himself.
    The pictures on Wikipedia have been uploaded without permission and are photos of photos so low quality or from websites of a current day hotel, which was formerly a building in Darjeeling known as Nazargunj House.
    For factual evidence or historical Checks please refer to www.rajaofnazargunj.com
    It also refers to authentic and credible sources so may be of use to settle any potential disputes. (moved ip (92.18.72.76) words from top of this afd to here so entries are in the correct order. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment - Heba aisha ji as ip user above has mentioned a website raja of nazurganj Com. I checked it some sources were present there but as a new comer I don't have idea whether sources are reliable or not so you should check it once if you find it, suitable you can add it, some images were also present. Himanshu Kushwaha Blocked for sockpuppetry. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Seems like a good topic and may be some interested users can improve this. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 23:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify -- An article on a princely state with a population of 180,000 is potentially viable, if reliable sources can be provided. However, if the state existed from the 14th century until 1940s, a lot more of its history is needed. We certainly cannot keep the present article as it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per above.--Ankit (Talk with me) 22:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, needs better sources.PrisonerB (talk) 11:02, 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 redirect to List of Fables characters#Snow White. Logically anyone linking to or searching for Snow White + Fables is going to want the Fables version; hence, targeting to the character list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White (Fables)[edit]

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. Coverage on the character appears to be limited to passing mentions and plot summaries. TTN (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is for a redirect or merge, but which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:48, 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. Cabayi (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of bodies of water of capital cities of the United States[edit]

List of bodies of water of capital cities of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:LISTN This set of items isn't notable; the only Google results about bodies of water that state capitals lie on are either this page, mirrors of this page, one blog, and one quiz (about identifying capitals based on a body of water). In addition, the article was initially declined by AfC due to lack of sources (indeed, the page has zero citations), then abandoned. It was then [for speedy deletion] due to being an abandoned draft, then for some reason it was accepted for creation less than 2 hours later without any message on the creator's talk page. Note that there weren't any changes in the interim months and the only changes since the initial rejected draft and the current state are fixing some links to ambiguous place names and stylistic changes (smart quotes, bold). I understand that current issues with the article shouldn't be the main reason for an afd because it could be improved but there are no reliable sources regarding the topic (not notable) and the article doesn't seem like it should have been created in the first place.

Sorry if I did anything wrong, this is my first afd discussion. 20UF6 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 20UF6 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 20UF6 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 20UF6 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that someone tried to speedy delete it years ago makes no difference at all. One of the things Wikipedia is is an almanac. The first of the founding principles of Wikipedia is found at: Wikipedia:Five pillars Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.. This is a perfect article for this encyclopedia. Dream Focus 02:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arbitrary cross-categorization. Big cities are by rivers, lakes or bays; small cities are by rivers, lakes or bays; and, yes, capital cities are by rivers, lakes, or bays, but there is absolutely nothing special that relates these in particular. I'm not sure what the gibberish above is supposed to mean, having features of a gazetteer does not mean we need to arbitrarily list bodies of water that happen to be near where a legislature meets any more than we need a Closest mountains to capital cities of the United States. This is not something covered as a group in reliable sources. Reywas92Talk 03:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Zero sources, no source showing why this trivial cross-categorization is notable or of interest. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this is an arbitrary intersection which is not addressed by sources. There is no evidence that bodies of water within cities designated as state capitals are treated any different from other bodies of waters within other non-state-capital cities. WP:NOTCATALOG#6 applies here.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, total trivia. Fails WP:LISTN as non notable cross categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Suonii180 (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, repetitive categorization. Mukedits (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. LearnIndology (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Reywas92. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_April_28&oldid=1037257648"