Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 29	May 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze Lovejoy[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Good sources are lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. Google search turns up nothing except the VoyageLA source, which is an interview with the subject and does not include any commentary from the interviewer which makes it neither secondary nor independent, and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 11:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. I searched under Nian Aster and Blaze and could not find anything which would come to meet GNG or NBIO. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet GNG; there's a lack of RS supporting this subject. --Kbabej (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 18:47, 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. Missvain (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Anwar[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, limited coverage but not enough to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 13 FC matches but all for uni sides, not seeing anything significant in coverage at all. No suitable redirect as played for multiple FC teams. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 13 matches in first class cricket. Why is this even here. Tintin 17:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GNG is the relevant guideline here, and it is clearly not met with what I could find online (and there's nothing offline on him in the UK from Newspapers.com). JoelleJay (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 13 FC matches, passes the 10 match threshold which was agreed to be a reasonable amount. StickyWicket (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where is the coverage. scope_creep^Talk 18:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 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. Withdrawn by nominator, with no opposing !votes. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salutem Healthcare[edit]

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

No more than native advertising. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 22:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its a significant provided of social care and there is plenty of independent coverage. Improve the article. Dont delete it. Rathfelder (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The referenes are routine annoucement and there is many many of these care homes companies, making it a fairly generic category. What makes this stand out? I honestly don't see much as it stands and the reference fails WP:NCORP. It looks like a native business listing and has had advertising tag for some while now. scope_creep^Talk 15:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all routine. It's taken over all Scope's services. That makes it significant in itself. There are fewer big care homes companies than you might imagine (75% of care home providers run just one home), but the fact that there are other providers doesnt mean we shouldnt have an article about this one. After all there are also lots of hospitals. Social care is very significant and our coverage of it is poor. Rathfelder (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to suggestions but at the moment 5 out the 6 references fail WP:CORPDEPTH as routine announcements and the last one, which is the first one, fails WP:ORGIND specifically. Not one decent reference. A formulation of some kind of approach is required I think. Showing it is significant compared to other cares homes in the UK perhaps. But at the same time, Wikipedia can't be a listing service for care companies in general, or any company for that matter. We are not a directory. It would be a seriously bad thing if we were. scope_creep^Talk 17:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There isnt a huge amount of coverage of the company as a whole (and some of what there is is behind a paywall), but there will be coverage of most of the 130 services it runs, sometimes in considerable depth. Decisions to delete should not depend on what is actually in the article. NB this is not only a provider of care homes. Its a specialised provider for autism, cerebral palsy etc. The MBE also seems to indicate notability. Rathfelder (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think article has been updated per the WP:HEYMANN standard. I think we should withdraw the nomination. scope_creep^Talk 16:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Wolkstein[edit]

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

This article was nominated for deletion back in 2014 but the sources were seemingly not extensively researched. To meet WP:CREATIVE she would need to have:

created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews

Is this the case? She was a producer for the fifth season of Queen Sugar and directed a more limited set of episodes. Regarding coverage, I went over all the sources and it's mostly passing mentions and primary sources. Only this description+interview from Filmmakermagazine seems interesting. I searched the web and found:

Shortoftheweek which I doubt to be a RS (and is barely more than a passing mention anyway)
interview with moveablefest.com (RS?)
interview with anthemmagazine.com (RS?)
interview with nofilmschool.com (RS?)
interview with pinnlandempire.com (Vimeo link, RS?)
interview with Hammer to Nail (RS?)
interview with Temple news (The Temple News is a weekly newspaper of Temple University, Wolkstein is a Professor at the Temple University)

Only Filmmaker Magazine could be found on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. I think it's worth discussing and perhaps someone manages to find better sources that could establish notability. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is completely ridiculous and arguably unhinged. Alexis Jazz's edits to Lauren Wolkstein's page have advanced into vandalism and I removed the "nominated for deletion" panel because it is vindictive, groundless and frankly stupid. Lauren Wolkstein is a PRODUCING DIRECTOR on a five-season major TV series created by Ava DuVernay. She has won awards for her short and feature films prior to then. Her work has appeared at ALL of the top film festivals in the world (Cannes, Sundance, SXSW). What on Earth does a director have to do exactly to qualify for notability on Wikipedia if that doesn't qualify her? I wish to propose that Alexis Jazz be banned from editing Lauren Wolkstein's page. He or she has shown stunningly poor judgment with this absurdly unwarranted move. Zedembee (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the bot coming back and repeating the vandalism initiated by Alexis Jazz. I am not sure how to do that. The fact that literally no one else has felt compelled to second Alexis Jazz here should SPEAK VOLUMES. This is a lone operator apparently intent on disrupting the page. Please close this page so that the bot does not come back. This is deeply unfair to the yearslong accomplishments of the subject of the Lauren Wolkstein page. Thank you. Zedembee (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I've removed some headers and added the !vote to this statement. Original/pre-collapse is here. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At a recent AIV, Muboshgu stated "Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting." (diff), and after a re-report, Malcolmxl5 stated "Declined. Second opinion: This is not vandalism." (diff). Beccaynr (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but this is not of any relevance to whether the subject is of sufficient notability for a dedicated Wikipedia page.Zedembee (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE because she has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...]. In addition, such work has been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent [...] reviews that I have found and added to the article: LA Times, The Hollywood Reporter, Vulture, NPR, Variety, Chicago Reader, and the Austin Chronicle, in addition to the two reviews that were already in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Beccaynr, the reason I'm unsure The Strange Ones qualifies is that it must be a a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. As I read it, "significant or well-known" is a higher bar than "notable". The Strange Ones meets Wikipedia notability criteria, but I don't think it's a "significant or well-known work" like for example Star Trek, The Incredible Hulk or The Simpsons. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- From my view, the film is objectively 'well-known' due to the volume of reviews; however, with the 2013 Filmmaker profile and the way the 2017 - 2018 reviews provide specific commentary on her work as a director/writer/editor, it looks like WP:BASIC notability is also supported; this recent interview with Xtra includes biographical information; and Variety has a 2016 review of another one of her works. Beccaynr (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC) As does the NY Times, Slant Magazine, Film Pulse, and The Austin Chronicle. Beccaynr (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC) As I continue to research and revise the article, I also found brief but non-trivial 2014 coverage from the NYT's T Magazine. Beccaynr (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. Certainly "significant" is a higher bar than "notable", but it's not that much higher. If the bar for "significant" were "as well-known as Star Trek" we'd exclude nearly everything. pburka (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:CREATIVE. The Strange Ones has won significant critical attention which makes her notable. --Ashley yoursmile! 12:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Fellowship Ministries World Outreach Center[edit]

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

I get 119 unique Google hits. The sources are directories and a passing mention. I see no evidence that this passes WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a very large, visible church. The two New York Times stories are typical of press attention. A search on Google Books gets snippets that indicate plenty of additional coverage:
- Faith Fellowship Ministries Faith Fellowship Ministries World Outreach Center 2707 Main St . Sayreville , NJ 08872 www . ffmwoc . org Faith Fellowship Ministries was founded in 1980 by David T . Demola , who also leads Covenant Ministries ...
- Faith Fellowship Ministries , Inc. v . Limbach , 32 OS3d 432 , 513 NE2d 1340 . 45. ( 1987 ) To qualify for exemption from real property taxation as a house used exclusively for public worship under RC 9 5709.07 , such property must be used in ...
- David is the pastor of Faith Fellowship Ministries in Edison , New Jersey . He bought a piece of land at the intersection of the New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway , where he and his congregation planned to build a huge new ...
- In Faith Fellowship Ministries , Inc. v . Limbach , a church was denied a full tax exemption for their building , which included a cafeteria and gymnasium , on the basis that two of the uses were merely supportive of public worship instead of ...
- Vincent Longo is a minister and evangelist at Faith Fellowship Ministries in Edison , NJ . For over 10 years , Vinny , the founder and director of Victory in Jesus , has taken the gospel and the victorious power of Jesus Christ to the unchurched in ...
- Faith Fellowship Ministries , Inc . v . Limbach , 513 N . E . 2d 1340 , 32 Ohio St . 3d 432 . — Tax 2355 . Ohio 1949 . Where primary use of one and a half story building was for public worship , the build - ing was used exclusively for “ public ...
- She is a member of Faith Fellowship Ministries in Sayreville , New Jersey , where she serves as a deacon and teacher . Ms. Lucas is the founder of Esteem Ministries , which is committed to helping believers live victorious Christian lives .
- Give and it will be given unto you ; a good measure , pressed down , shaken together , and running over , will be put into your lap ” ( Luke 6 : 38 ) . Abounding Grace Ministries is now an outreach of Faith Fellowship Ministries World Outreach ...
- There the revival has not ended but has Faith Fellowship Ministries in NJ — their belief in the prosperity message instead become , as the Urapmin say , a church . After demonstrating that is that if they give their finances to the church , God will ...

It would be extraordinary if an operation of this size was not notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A church with 10,000 worshippers weekly ought to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage as shown in this discussion including the New York Times and book sources so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of MiniDisc releases[edit]

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

FAils WP:LISTCRIT and WP:LISTN. This is simply a catalog listing of releases on a particular format, and there's no way this can ever be sourced except by linking to Amazon and other online stores, because there are no sources that describe all the albums released on MiniDisc. Why not List of CD releases or List of vinyl LP releases? Richard3120 (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on whether this is of indiscriminate scope (though certainly far fewer albums were released in this format than CD or vinyl), but the mass-produced discs are themselves sources for their own existence and content, fundamentally no different than a list of books. Any information not contained in the disc releases themselves would clearly need a separate source, like if the list purported to be comprehensive. postdlf (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if the thing itself is enough to be a source for its existence, then what's stopping editors creating lists of everything that exists? And just because there were fewer of something doesn't make it more list-worthy. Richard3120 (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not the question I was answering. You’re welcome to move on to different points, but your nom claimed these couldn’t be sourced and compared it to lists of media that basically every album ever had been released under. That’s as far as I was commenting. postdlf (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't dispute the existence of these albums on MiniDisc, but I wouldn't make List of CD releases based on the fact I could source their existence either. But my main point was that I don't believe this meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, whether the individual entries could be proved to exist or not. Richard3120 (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, simple case of WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 08:48, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Missvain (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANCRA Marketing Model[edit]

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

None of the sources mention the subject. An online search doesn't produce any reliable secondary sources for said model. Might be just a cover-up for backlinks provided in the references list, much of which is primary source-based. nearlyevil 665 19:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scottwrites (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC) ok. well... the whole point was I found several sources for the model because I was using it. But when I came to wiki and didn't see an article I thought, ok, write one. Now as to the whole cover-up for backlinks in references; I'd never heard that before. But don't really care. Because if that's a concern, if you want I'll just go find completely different sources and change every single one of them. That seems kind of odd given they talk about the steps, but whatever. If that's ok, great. If not, say so and I won't go to the trouble. Not important enough to debate much.[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-04 ✍️ create

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Vinu Nair[edit]

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

She doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NMODEL. The references available are either only sponsored content or passing mentions in non RS. Not a single significant coverage in a RS. Roller26 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more articles and there are hundreds of articles on the internet which is in her name for winning the national pageant. The articles have come up after a period of time and not all at once. Her achievements have been covered in the newspapers etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aayat1998 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: While I dont know whether winning Miss Teen Diva 2020 makes her passes WP:NMODEL, she seems like passing WP:GNG to me as she has recieved sigcov from two reliable sources. This source [1] from The Print makes her pass WP:BASIC. And if we combine it with this[2] Malayalam source from Manorama, which is the leading national daily in Kerala, I believe it will makes her pass WP:GNG. This source is almost covering her entire career even though it is partially an interview. Some other sources were also found. But Im not bringing here as I am not sure about its reliability. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki, the Print article has clear attribution to ANI Press Release (same one which Business Standard carried). It cannot be used to establish notability. MM is more than half interview, we need three WP:THREE independent RS significant coverage to keep the article. Roller26 (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references are all based on PR material. No clear assertion of notability. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references have been added which are independent and not only from the press release. Times of India, India Times, Khaleej Times, Bhaskar, etc are the independent articles that are not based on the PR material. There are more articles available on the internet which are independently written. Aayat1998 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article failed to satisfy WP:GNG.---Richie Campbell (talk) 14:05, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn; all other !votes were to keep. See WP:SKCRIT #1. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Late-life mortality deceleration[edit]

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

A huge chunk of original research; basically retelling a 2011 paper. Other references are just for tangential issues, a background of the paper. Not a single ref after 2011, i.e., no peer review cited, andd the nearly whole text is coming from a single primary source Lembit Staan (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]~~

withdraw per Weburbia and Danbloch. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Late-life mortality deceleration is a fundamental topic in gerontology and longevity demographics. The term has been around since at least the 1970s and is widely used. There are plenty of references in both primary literature and secondary sources. Try scholar, book and news searches. The mortality plateau is the ubiquitous example of mortality deceleration models and many more references can be found under that name. This article does not do the subject justice because it focuses on just one paper, but it is not original research and the topic is highly notable. It just needs someone to go through the sources available and update the article. Weburbia (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my nomination? I am not talking about the subject, I am talking about the wikpedia page, which is basically retelling a new primary source. If the subject is valid, then NUKE and write from scratch. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article has a source, so it is by definition not original research. Having only a single source is an issue, and I've added a maintenance tag to reflect that, but nothing in the OP's post is a grounds for deletion. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:19, 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. I'm going with the keeps on this one. There are additional sources that can be added. You can also build a great article using passing mentions with support from more significant coverage. Let's try improving the article, discussing it on the talk page, and feel free to re-nominate if you're losing sleep that this subject does not merit inclusion. Thanks for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Godi media[edit]

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

The subject is merely social media slang, used by a certain group of people and some unreliable so-called "online news outlets", which were created a few years ago. The majority of the refs used are WP:QS do not pass WP:RS. Last but not least, the subject clearly fails WP:N. LearnIndology (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S There is no indepth coverage of the topic. Mere inclusion of a "word" in few articles doesn't make it notable. LearnIndology (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Run n Fly (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Run n Fly (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Run n Fly (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Run n Fly (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep I strongly support this wiki. this should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.201.145 (talk)
Delete I totally agree with deleting this. At best, it could be included as a subsection in a wider article on Theory of Lapdog journalism, something this article had a section on previously. Agent raymond232 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Please do add (*Delete) in the beginning of your comment. LearnIndology (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It clearly fails WP:N and article is full of WP:OR. desmay (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed the article of WP:OR. Please explain why it "clearly fails". Lembit Staan (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep - slang or not, no matter who uses it, it refers to a certain phenomenon in India social media and certainly a nontyrivial searchable term, with reasonably reliable sources which explain it. NOt to say that it was coined in a reliable source. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The following cited sources are good (if one claims they are unreliable, please establish this at the special place: WP:RSN):
1. Philipose, Pamela @ The Wire gives the definition, connects "godi" and "lapdog" terms, gives the usage and an explanation how they operate;
2. Washington Post reasonably elaborates on the subject as well
3. Frontline is under paywall, but "godi media" and "lapdog" aree searchable by browser in the article
4. Gulf News shows that Kumar is not a random journalist to invent a random term and gives some more bits on the subject
5. Clarion India Describes several anti-Muslim godi media
I din't look into other refs. IMO the ones above are sufficient to establish notability. Lembit Staan (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not required to claim they are unreliable. They are not reliable by the virtue of them missing in the list of reliable news sources. If you claim they are "good", you need to prove them to be WP:RS. Opinion pieces contributed to organizations known to publish content with a specific slant which are not well established news sources are not reliable enough to justify a reference. Now, coming to your specific items,
The Frontline, Gulf news, Washington Post and Clarion India articles are opinion pieces. They don't talk about the usage of the term Godi media in common parlance nor do they provide any evidence for this. They only talk about this term being coined by the aforementioned journalist. A phrase being used by a certain journalist is not notable enough for having its own page. To justify its own page, the content should be well researched and sourced to justify this page's claim in the second paragraph that it was widely used. As per Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable news sources, "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." That is not being done here.

The only evidence of this term being used in common parlance is in the Wire article, but the Wire is hardly a reliable source of information. It is known to be biased against the current political party in power at the centre. It has on several occasions referenced fake news from other sources or has created fake news on its own. I can mention two incidents off the top of my head but that is beyond the purview of discussion here.
Agent raymond232 (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not required to claim they are unreliable - you got it upside down, colleague. We get the list of proved reliable sources in order to avoid repeated evaluation. Simlarly we hv verifie unreliable souces, to aoid repeated discussion. For all unlisted sources you have to prove that they are not reliable. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is known to be biased against the current political party in power at the centre - So in your opinion we have to forbid reference from the government opposition and we have to forbid to present their point of view. and hence your vote is to turn wikipedia into a "godi media": no bad word agaist the goverment. This violates our fundamental policy WP:NPOV. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two reliable sources (Frontline and NYT) cited in the article, and both of these sources nowhere use the term "Godi media". LearnIndology (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frontline has used "Godi Media" an the NYT has used "lapdog media". There is also a Caravan source, several from The Wire and Newslaundry, all of which are reliable sources for Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) Where on Frontline and NYT editions do you find the reference of "Godi media" ? Also, I checked the list of reliable sources and it does not even list The Wire, Caravan and Newslaundry. Further, a lot of those pieces are written as editorials, analyses and opinions, hence do not abide by WP:NEWSORG for reporting facts. To summarise, only New York Times is listed as a reliable source in Wikipedia and even that too does not mention the word "Godi media", even if you were to be believed.Agent raymond232 (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NEWSORG are about reporting facts which are news, i.e., events. We are talking about a concept, a term. These things are not necessarily defined in the news, but in the analyses. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The term in question here cannot originate from analyses. It has to be backed by news covering events mentioning its use. If those news items are not reliable or are not news at all, the WP:N of this term is put under question. Just because some opinion writer thinks of coming up a new slang to malign a certain group of people, it does not become Wikipedia worthy. Agent raymond232 (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes political terms can originate from analysis, and its proponent is an award-winning journalist, who knows what he is speaking about. And he does not malign, he accuses, with arguments. Lembit Staan (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also you are mistaken of wikipedia rules: mere mentioning its usage is insufficient to establish notability. Lembit Staan (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes political terms can originate from analysis," Where is it mentioned so in Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, the qualities of the proponent you are proclaiming here is your point of view. In my point of view, he does selective journalism and shows half truth to support his propaganda. But that is beside the point. Also, as you rightly mentioned, mere mentioning its usage is insufficient to establish notability, and that is why this page is up for deletion. It is not a notable topic at all. Agent raymond232 (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are enough good sources, and this is apparently an important topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) As the other user points out, hardly any of the sources mention the term Godi media. Also, this topic hardly warrants a page for itself. At the most, this can be kept as a subsection of a page discussing the Theory of Lapdog Journalism.
Wrong; see my "P.S". Lembit Staan (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to your "P.S". Agent raymond232 (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a term that is notable per multiple reliable sources. It is not the case that only sources listed in WP:RSP count as reliable; please read WP:RSPMISSING. Neither is it the case that an opinion piece in a reliable source can never be used to support the fact that a term is used – it is a question of context, per WP:RSPUSE. It is a problem that names of media outlets are added indiscriminately as examples of godi media without sources to support the use for that particular publication, but that is not a reason to delete the entire article. [Adding: Note that there are sources supporting the claim that "Godi media" is used about those newspapers and TV channels that are currently listed in the article.] --bonadea contributions talk 11:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added links to the previous WP:AFD at top-right manually as this article had a different title previously. Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can someone provide significant coverage found in multiple reliable sources concerning this term? Passing mentions are not enough for creating an article about a pejorative term. Shankargb (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several references in the article with reasonable coverage, not just mentioning, see my PS. list above. The article may be easily expanded with more detailed descriptions from them. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are supposed to link those "several references" here that are enough for establishing the notability of the subject. Vague handwaves do nothing. LearnIndology (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete as a separate article. As article very clearly fails WP:N. As article fails WP:N for have to be separate article further saying things are just punctilio.

Better idea would be to merge the article in another article as a sub-section of any lapdog article or any 'Media of India' related article(related,not specifically this Media of India article.

A term of slang (used by some persons or some media) doesn't deserve to be a separate article on wiki(sub-section of another article (of Indian Media) is better).

I'm not denying the fact that, These channels (listed in the article Godi media) partially took side of present government, sometimes.

As who favors the government are callled Godi media(also there are channels who always speak against government, even if government is doing well in any matter. Those are also called like(libra**s, Sikular many more things, than I think they also should have the articles. But being a good wikipedian(good thinker),even these things don't deserve a separate article,a sub-section in 'Media of India' may be quite good.)

+--+Still, some about the fact that... There are some reliable sources in article, but most of them are opinionated like examples of Churnalism. Most sources lack WP:NPOV and also there are WP:PARTISAN sources. Articles in some reliable sources here in the article are the opinionated columnsWP:RSOPINION of those indian writers(who have worked or were working with Ndtv and Ravish Kumar and also whose thinking goes to left leaning--^[1] Mostly things are given of Original Research. Also reliable sources merely mention this word(even those reports are opinionated .i.e.Churnalism). And these kind of opinionated mentions or opinionated news doesn't hold strong point for a separate article.

Just because a journalist came up with a slang word,(there are also words like that for that journalist also,but that's not an essential thing to create a article) it doesn't need to be a separate article (you can mention this word Godi media on his page,not as a article).

I will be the first to create a separate article on Godi media if all the news channel owners of listed in Godi media forms a separate news agency and named it Godi Media.

Godi media really a low-opinion slur or outrageous word doesn't need to be a separate article.

^ "Why foreign media loves anti-BJP, champagne socialists as columnists". The Print. 7 May 2020.

Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Bonadeas assessment that it is a term that is notable per multiple reliable sources.BabbaQ (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, it's a very notable topic and worth including in encyclopedia. Heba Aisha (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. No sources provide it significant coverage. Agletarang (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That a word has a pejorative meaning has nothing to do with whether it is a notable term. That a word belongs to the casual/slang register has nothing to do with whether it is a notable term. That a word is not popular with a particular group has nothing to do with whether it is a notable term. The only thing that can determine whether it is a notable term is whether there is significant coverage in independent sources. The article currently includes multiple sources that talk about the phrase: the five sources listed by Lembit Staan above, and also a couple of Newslaundry sources (in particular the one called "Media has lost our trust"). By the way, somebody was claiming higher up in this thread that Newslaundry is not considered to be a RS, but [t]here is consensus that Newslaundry is generally reliable. There are also many sources that use the term without discussing it in any depth – this includes the National Herald and New Frame (which I just restored to the article). In fact, I get so many minor/trivial hits in GNews and GScholar that it is very clear indeed that the phrase "Godi media" is in common use, and not just used by a small group, or as a passing fad. --bonadea contributions talk 17:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. A non-notable topic, which is popular only on Twitter. Knox490 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely enough notable term and a well-sourced article.— TheWikiholic (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my request above. Subject fails WP:GNG. Shankargb (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pejorative, uncyclopaedic term only used by a small group. Fails WP:N. --RaviC (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Here is my analysis of the main sources used on this article:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210209035845/https://frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/muzzling-the-media-how-the-narendra-modi-regime-continues-to-undermine-the-news-landscape/article33770431.ece	Yes, it is independent.	Source is reliable,	Only a passing mention of "Godi Media".	✘ No
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/21/journalism-is-under-attack-india-so-is-truth/	Yes, it is independent.	unreliable opinion piece.	Only makes a passing mention of "godi media".	✘ No
https://sk.sagepub.com/books/key-concepts-in-journalism-studies/n109.xml	Scholarly source.		Makes no mention of "Godi media".	✘ No
https://thewire.in/media/backstory-farmers-protest-journalistic-callousness-media	? The Wire is a big time critic of BJP.	? Wire generally requires attribution.	Only makes a passing mention of "godi media".	✘ No
https://thewire.in/media/backstory-farmers-protest-journalistic-callousness-media	? The Wire is a big time critic of BJP.	? Wire generally requires attribution.	Only makes a passing mention of "godi media".	✘ No
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/magsaysay-award-winner-ravish-kumars-journalism-is-fearless-doesnt-monetise-hate-by-peddling-a-communal-agenda-1.1564905034018			Only makes a passing mention of "godi media".	✘ No
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/magsaysay-award-winner-ravish-kumars-journalism-is-fearless-doesnt-monetise-hate-by-peddling-a-communal-agenda-1.1564905034018			Only makes a passing mention of "godi media".	✘ No
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}}.

The above handwaves of sources (WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST) is misleading and weakens the case of notability of this subject. Tessaracter (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Your "significant coverage?" column only documents the coverage of "Godi media" (the term) and not the coverage of Godi media (the media). For example, The first source ("Muzzling the media: How the Modi regime continues to undermine the news landscape") is almost entirely about the very media that are being called Godi media. And your table says, it isn't significant coverage. This is hardly a reasonable analysis. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- When you say "main sources", is that a reference to how much each source is used in the article? I know that source assessment takes a bit of time, but I am a little puzzled about why you selected those specific sources. Several people (including myself) have pointed to significant coverage that exists in the article right now, such as the Newslaundry and Caravan sources. That is not "handwaving". It also looks like you accidentally included one of the Wire sources twice – the Wire article you did not include is specifically about the use of the phrase. --bonadea contributions talk 11:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  This would imply that this assessment table is a biased assessment and should be taken as such. -- DaxServer (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This is clearly a POV article with particular agenda of defaming media houses which do not support their certain ideology. ---256Drg (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

"Purely disruptive material" (and subsequent comments, per suggestion) ——Serial 16:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There are many guys on this platform who are vandalising articles according to their POV. Here is an example I have been involved into. Where everyone support Controversy section on Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj article but can not get 'consensus' to add the same section on Winston Churchill article : See here. ---256Drg (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@256Drg These two are entirety unrelated articles and completely different discussions. I do not understand why you have linked it here. -- DaxServer (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer: 256Drg is trolling; see this discussion, as a result of which they will soon be indefinitely blocked. Cheers! ——Serial 16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 Would it be possible to remove this comment [and replies to it] based on purely disruptive and unrelated [after a decision is made on the noticeboard]; or should it be kept and be considered for this (Godi media) AfD discussion? -- DaxServer (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that 256Drg has now been indef blocked. I also think his comment above should be removed. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bonadea's thorough analysis; recommend a little deeper WP:BEFORE. ——Serial 16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Some WP:RS with significant coverage not yet in the article.^[1]^[2]^[3] --SUN EYE 1 17:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "India's Media Is Partly to Blame for Its COVID Tragedy". Time. Retrieved 2021-05-06.
^ Singh, Prabhjit. "Farmers at Kundli upset over media misrepresentation, accusations; confront "godi media"". The Caravan. Retrieved 2021-05-06.
^ "Farmers' Protest: A Roadmap for the Opposition". Economic and Political Weekly: 7–8. 2015-06-05.

Delete Nitesh003 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bonadea above. Also, per SN54129, insufficient WP:BEFORE nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:09, 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 merge to Mechanical puzzle. Merge and disambiguate. Feel free to discuss accordingly on appropriate talk page. Missvain (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid puzzle[edit]

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Mechanical puzzle. No reason why a pyramid shape in particular is notable. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clearly fails our rules against dictionary defintions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Clearly the contributors to this article had a specific puzzle in mind, rather than just the generic idea of a puzzle being pyramid-shaped. It's hard to tell which puzzle the article is talking about, but I think it is the two-piece and four-piece puzzles described in this University of Waterloo virtual museum of games. I think the link I gave doesn't make the puzzle generally notable, but I'm mentioning it here in the spirit of WP:BEFORE. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the two-piece one, comparing against the original, now deleted because it was not correctly licensed, illustration; but it is not the same four-piece one. Uncle G (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, merge to Mechanical puzzle and then disambiguate, as argued by MarkH21 below, is preferable to deletion and seems to address most concerns raised in the discussion. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- its not clear what this even refers to. The author of the article is no longer active, so we may never know. If we have to guess at the subject of the article, then it clearly doesn't belong.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too ambiguous. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sources and image added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and WP:NAD CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect that enough different things are called "pyramid puzzles" that calling this the primary meaning would be misleading. There's already a hatnote to the tower of Hanoi, and the GS search indicates that the cannonball problem is also known as the "square pyramid puzzle" [3]. (In addition, there's a lesser-known "Chinese Number Pyramid Puzzle" [4].) Then there are some appearances in video games, etc. It seems like anything worth saying about the two-piece pyramid assembly puzzle can be said at mechanical puzzle, but I'm not convinced of the merits of leaving a redirect behind. XOR'easter (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, with Mechanical puzzle. On reflection, after researching this, and per XOR'easter - there are lots of different types of pyramid puzzles. There is no real reason why the pyramid variant of a mechanical puzzle needs its own article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and WP:NAD as per all above. Fails WP:GNG Purosinaloense T/K 14:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then disambiguate: There isn't actually much to merge from here to mechanical puzzle, although I wouldn't be opposed to having a sentence or two merged over. However, I don't think that this page should remain as a redirect to mechanical puzzle as other editors have already argued. Ideally, this would be merged and then immediately converted into a disambiguation page (which also preserves the article history for attribution regarding the merge). This is should be a solution that aligns with all of the merge and delete arguments above.
The need for a merge is that there is well-referenced content here (not much, but it's there) that is suitable for a sentence of two at mechanical puzzle, but the topic is not notable enough and the term is too ambiguous for a standalone article here about pyramid-shaped mechanical puzzles as pointed out by several editors.
The need for a disambiguation is due to the fact pointed out by several editors that the term "pyramid puzzle" is ambiguous and refers approximately equally to mechanical puzzles currently at this article and the Tower of Hanoi, and slightly less so for the cannonball problem and some other pyramid-shaped puzzles. It seems like a reasonably common enough search term (page views) for these various puzzles (for example, it is a well-referenced alternative name in the lead of Tower of Hanoi) such that a disambiguation page is needed here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then disambiguate per the !vote just above. XOR'easter (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 19:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merge and disambiguate is a reasonable suggestion: google readily shows there are plenty of other things called "pyramid puzzle". Lembit Staan (talk)
Merge and then disambiguate per the excellent arguments of MarkH21. --JBL (talk) 02:29, 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 delete. Going with the deletes on this one. If you need to see the article to merge any content, please let me know. I'm also happy to support a redirect to whatever page ya'll suggest. Missvain (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K17HC[edit]

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

Not notable translator station, as per WP:BCAST. No source has been provided to show this was anything but a translator station. Rusf10 (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at best redirect to Gray Television/KAUU. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even as early as 2007, an application to modify the construction permit said that this was to be a translator of KYES in Anchorage. Perhaps merge anything useful to KAUU (the successor to KYES), but no objection to deletion either. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The nominator fails to disclose here that this article was part of a slew of PRODs they initiated, all offering the exact same rationale (the first sentence in this rationale). This particular PROD was contested on the basis of BCAST, WP:NTEMP and WP:DEGRADE (explained below). Their response was to suddenly change the argument (the second sentence in this rationale). BCAST does not address the unique circumstances of this station. Rather, it is pretty clear-cut: either a station originates a signal to a broadcast area and is notable, or repeats a signal originating elsewhere and is not notable. At the time of this article's creation in 2009, it described a station which met the former criteria. Under the very black-and-white standards of BCAST, the fact that it was a low-power UHF station broadcasting programming commonly found these days on digital television subchannels is irrelevant. Wikipedia's coverage of television outlets in the United States has been hijacked by a small group of editors who work almost exclusively in this topic area, are dismissive and even passive-aggressive towards input from the editing community at large, and who have weighted coverage of the topic area heavily towards current/recent events and the small handful of broadcasting companies which pass properties back and forth as if they were a cheap whore. The nominator's editing activity shows them to be one such person. I've been editing articles on television outlets for close to a decade and there are plenty of minor stations where third-party sourcing is sorely lacking. The consensus has been that the information found in {{BIA}} and {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} are suitable substitutes for third-party citations in establishing notability. This is problematic in this case, as it allows for NTEMP and DEGRADE to be flagrantly disregarded and gives credence to the notion that notability hinges solely on current mention in the linked databases. The nominator seeks to capitalize on the lack of current mention in those databases, as well as diverting your attention away from the station's early history when it held a claim to notability and have you focus on it later becoming a translator and still later becoming defunct. Another argument raised here is that it should redirect to Gray Television, ignoring that its history as a translator (never mind the prior history described above) precedes Gray's purchase of KYES. This is another widespread POV found in coverage of this topic area, namely that by buying a broadcast property, one is entitled to buy exposure on the encyclopedia. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioKAOS:Ignoring your continued personal attacks and allegation that I am part of some type of conspiracy, you still have not put forth a single source to back up your claims. When you first deporded this with a personal attack against me [5] in which you accused me of being an WP:SPA, I responded by pinging you and asking you for a source [6]. You ignored my request, so after waiting over a week, I took the article to AfD. And you still have not put forth a single source to back up your claim that the station was independently notable in 2009. user:Wcquidditch is the only person to provide a source and that source directly contradicts your claim because it shows that at least as early as 2007, this was a translator station. As I already explained to you, I am not claiming temporary notability, so that's another false claim. What I am asserting is that the station never has been notable at any point in time. So if I am wrong, I am asking you one more time, where are the sources to back up your claims?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this further. It is indisputable that K17HC and KYES have always been co-owned. Before Gray purchased the stations in 2015, they were owned by fireweed communications. Both always had the same affiliation too. Without any other evidence presented (which still is the case here), I have to believe K17HC repeated KYES's programming. If I'm wrong, provide a source.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 19:19, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madurai T. Srinivasan[edit]

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

Practically unsourced BLP (the only accessible source, apart from the Youtube video, doesn't mention him). Tagged for notability since 2010 and has very obvious OR and POV issues. I can't find any significant coverage, although it may exist in other languages. Lennart97 (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete without prejudice as unsourced neglected for 10 years. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A complete dearth of RS, and would need to be rewritten anyway for the OR and POV issues. --Kbabej (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 18:48, 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 merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. Missvain (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Duck[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has a lot of WP:ORIGINAL, also Melissa Duck only really appeared for one short. Will support merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Topic fails WP:GNG. The only real world information is some irrelevant bit about the cartoon in which the character was featured. TTN (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. Although I am sad to see the article go because then we'll likely no longer use that image and she is one smokin' hot duck. Also there's a suggested merge template that's been on there since May 2020. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhhhh.... (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The vast majority of this article is not actually about the character, but about a bunch of other character that may or may not be the same duck. As none of this is sourced, this is pure WP:OR and should be removed. I was going to agree with the merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters, but upon searching, I can find almost nothing on the character in reliable sources. Maybe a Redirect to Baby Looney Tunes#Main, since that appears to be the only real series in which she had a significant presence, would work? Rorshacma (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So much WP:OR! may represent the "origin" of the Melissa Duck character... bears a strong resemblance to Melissa Duck... Despite having paler feathers, the female duck from this cartoon physically appears very similar to Melissa... also the possible inspiration for the Shirley the Loon

After all that's been trimmed, there's the one Looney Tunes short and Baby Looney Tunes that the character definitely appeared in. Fictional characters need to have real world notability, but none is asserted, no one here has suggested any, and I couldn't find any myself so this isn't really a viable subject for its own article. None of the three potential targets are great - List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters is mostly links to full articles with only four characters of actual content, but I suppose we could merge the bits of this that aren't OR there. A redirect might also work, but I can't decide if The Scarlet Pumpernickel (first appearance, more prominent work) or Baby Looney Tunes (subsequent appearance, less prominent work, but much larger role) would be a better target for that. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a list of LT characters, no evidence of stand-alone notability - just plot summary/mentions in passing here or there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 24 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?} 18:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to the list. No evidence of notability.Lembit Staan (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Park[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2012, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage of this singer, apart from the cited NPR show, which is not sufficient by itself. Lennart97 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I don’t see WP:MUSICBIO being satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Park is notable as an entertainer/singer. Two R&B/soul albums with many songs. Her songs are licensed to retail stores, in film, etc. She has performed internationally. I've improved this article and added sufficient refs. SWP13 (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO. The recordings have not charted on national music charts, or received any certifications or major accolades. The sources in the article (except the NPR source) are questionable, most of them are not reliable and independent - for instance this and this are blogs, and the rest either constitute routine coverage or are interviews with the subject and cannot be used to establish notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 11:33, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Fracassi[edit]

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

Nonnotable musician with no significant Tier1 coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SINGER Sonofstar (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was about sending this to AFD myself. This is the archetypal case of TOOSOON Celestina007 (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources given are obviously paid promotion.--- Possibly (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability. Lesliechin1 (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, maybe someday but for now TOOSOON JW 1961^Talk 20:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON, currently fails WP:MUSICBIO. I'm seeing lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Ashley yoursmile! 06:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their music technically metaverifies its own existence on Spotify — she has to actually pass a criterion in WP:NMUSIC, and she actually has to have reliable source coverage in media about those accomplishments, to clear the bar. But the four "press" links are blogs, not reliable or notability-making publications. I wish her good luck building her career, and obviously an article can be recreated about her if and when she's achieved something more noteworthy than just the existence of a song — but right now is WP:TOOSOON. We are not a free public relations platform for aspiring future stars to publicize themselves in advance of actually accomplishing anything noteworthy. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG & SINGER. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS helping this subject to meet GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Fails the latter miserably. --Kbabej (talk) 23:30, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back of a Car[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any biographical details in secondary sources. No awards or charted songs. The article is sourced by personal interviews with non-notable bloggers, and brief mentions in non-notable online magazines. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: appears to fail WP:BAND to me, but even if this is kept, I still doubt that this band gets as many search hits as the Big Star song of the same name, so at the very least a hatnote would need to be added to point to Radio City (album). Richard3120 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by blocked sockpuppets; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matdaviesuk. Mz7 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep - I would argue that this article meets all of the required criteria for inclusion. I disagree that it fails WP:BAND in that it meets points 1 and 4 with at least two of the article's sources. This band is definitely obscure, however, but I don't think that it merits deletion. I agree with Richard3120 and their comments regarding adding a hatnote to the Big Star song.Thisistheworst (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not think this article should be deleted just because the band is not considered popular. The sources given in the article are independent but not trivial.Matdaviesuk (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also wanted to add that I looked over a few other articles of bands from New Mexico, namely Polo Urias and The Eyeliners, and noticed that both of those articles have very few secondary sources. In fact, the Polo Urias article has no secondary sources and none of the information on the article is cited. I also note that the Polo Urias article lacks an encyclopedic tone and reads like an advertisement for the artist. While the Eyeliners article has one Allmusic reference, the other two are from non-notable sources. My explanation is not to advocate for the aforementioned articles' deletion, but just to state that given the mass volume of information available on wikipedia that sometimes articles are a work in progress and I believe the Back of a Car article should be no different. The article should be allowed inclusion and worked on at the very least, just as the other two articles I noted should be allowed inclusion.Thisistheworst (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After a WP:BEFORE search I was unable to find anything to substantiate the notability of this band. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON, and they will be ready for an article in a few years after some substantial reviews are published. The sourcing is weak, and not significant coverage. Does not pass WP:GNG, WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO. How this article stands up to others is not relevant to this discussion because OTHERSTUFF. Netherzone (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments involving blocked sockpuppets; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matdaviesuk. Mz7 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment - Responding to the comment regarding OTHERSTUFF above. The other articles mentioned above are especially important regarding the current article because logical consistency is necessary for any body of work; otherwise the information just devolves into circular reasoning. I think that the keep/delete arguments being made in this discussion are an example of the ongoing debate between Inclusionism vs Deletionism. I think it's important to remember Jimmy Wale's words here - "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing". I admit that the band is obscure but they certainly meet the (arbitrary) criteria of WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO.Thisistheworst (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thisistheworst, please understand that AfD is a process of consensus, it is not a war between "inclusionists" and "deletionists". We are all volunteers who are invested in improving the encyclopedia; in other words we are all on the same team. There is no reason to polarize the process and assume that an editor who disagrees with you is out to disrupt free access to human knowledge. I am guessing that you have stereotyped me as a "deletionist" because I !voted delete, however if you look at my AfD stats over the years, I'm about 50-50; and a content creator that actively improved many articles on notable subjects that have been nominated for deletion. The nominator, Magnolia677 is a very experienced editor who has created over 300 articles; they would not nominate an article on a cavalier whim.
  AfD discussions are supposed to focus on policy and guidelines, not on other editors.
  What might help your position is to clearly state which of the criteria of WP:BAND/MUSICBIO this band meets, backed up with independent, verifiable reliable sources, because I'm failing to find that: citation 1 is a blog and interview therefore not RS nor independent; 2 is an interview in a blog and a primary source that is not independent of the artist; 3 does not mention the band at all; 4 is a digital streaming song purchasing site; 5 is another download site with a long quotation by the artist (another primary source); 6 is a short profile in a blog, but is an independent source and a little better than 1 & 2, however the content isn't in-depth significant coverage; 7 is a music purchasing site. None of these meet the criteria for WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Criteria #1 for WP:BAND/MUSICBIO states "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." and criteria #4 states "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." There are no reviews in reliable sources, no awards, no charting songs, no notable albums, no gold records, no international/national tours, no major record labels, no notable musicians, etc. With all due respect for your efforts, I cannot understand how notability can be conferred. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Netherzone, please understand that it was not my intention to insinuate that you are of a particular editing "ideology", if you will. Apologies if I offended you. I brought that aspect up simply to illustrate the manner in which this article was nominated for deletion. Your comments were particularly helpful and engaging. In my opinion, the sources cited on this article speak for themselves and I feel that this article is a good contribution to wikipedia. With that being said, and though I feel this article meets all of the required criteria for inclusion, Wikipedia's notability criteria for WP:BAND is epistemologically incoherent. Given the current state of the music industry, most artists can't/won't meet that criteria for the entirety of their careers. Due to economic factors, much of music journalism is also simply a tool for PR. Can we honestly say that bands are not worth learning about simply because they do not pander to PR reps and journalists and do not reach a widespread audience? At this rate wikipedia is going to be an extremely poor resource for music history in the coming years.Thisistheworst (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thisistheworst, No offense taken. It's frustrating and disappointing when an article one has created or worked on is deleted, however that is the nature of this project. It's an encyclopedia, it's not a place to promote or advertise the things one "likes" or oneself, or something one is directly connected to, that is what social media is for. WP strives to be neutral and non-personal - that is how the integrity and quality of the encyclopedia is maintained. I appreciate your efforts, as I do the efforts of creative artists in general, however at this time this band does not, in any regard, meet our criteria for notability, not GNG, nor BAND, nor any other general or specific notability requirements. It's too soon for this band to have an article in the encyclopedia. That does not mean that there is not a place for indy bands or obscure topics, there is, but their importance needs to be established in verifiable, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (See WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS.) The guidelines and policies, while they may seem random, were in fact established through the dynamic process of discussions and consensus between editors around the world over many years. The guidelines/policies exist for a reason. My honest suggestion, which I hope you don't take the wrong way, is that the band should make (or hire/trade with someone to make) a great website for themselves, and self-promote that way. I don't know what the final outcome of this AfD will be; that is for the closing administrator to decide, but I feel strongly that the encyclopedia should not be used as a substitute PR rep just because it's free and "anyone can edit." Artists always figure out a way to survive and thrive because we are inventive and contribute to the culture in ways that no one has ever thought about before. And we just keep making stuff for the duration of our lives because we can. If the article is deleted, try again in a few years, but in the meantime, edit what you love but are not directly connected to (if that makes sense). That's the best advice I can give for now. Netherzone (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I forgot to mention that if you want to start a discussion about the perceived fairness of inclusion criteria, there are discussion boards here for that sort of thing. A place to start might be to ask at the TeaHouse or Help Desk where the best place to discuss notability for bands might be. Netherzone (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both of those articles Thisistheworst linked have never been considered for deletion as far as I can see. One band doesn't seem to have any charted songs either. Thisistheworst makes a compelling case for inclusion. If wikipedia is meant to encompass such a vast array of knowledge, then the article in discussion warrants inclusion. Researching also shows this band has had several national tours with many bands with more notoriety. In the punk world bands go years and years without mainstream exposure. Netherzone also makes a good point with WP:TOOSOON. But inclusion is the way here. Harmlessactor (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have opened this SPI regarding User:Matdaviesuk and User:Harmlessactor. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 23:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HVDC Leyte–Luzon[edit]

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

Possibly unnotable article of a transmission line. Has been tagged with unsourced since April 2009. The listed sites down below seem to be unreliable sites that cannot support this article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the coverage available in independent reliable sources. ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Chan-Ki Kim; Vijay K. Sood; Gil-Soo Jang; Seong-Joo Lim; Seok-Jin Lee (2009). HVDC Transmission: Power Conversion Applications in Power Systems. Wiley. pp. 398–399. ISBN 9780470822968.
^ Abdel-Aty Edris; Chen-Ching Liu; Mircea Eremia, eds. (2016). Advanced Solutions in Power Systems: HVDC, FACTS, and Artificial Intelligence. Wiley. p. 121. ISBN 9781119035695.
^ Catalina Spataru (2018). Transitioning Island Nations Into Sustainable Energy Hubs: Emerging Research and Opportunities. IGI Global. p. 70. ISBN 9781522560036.
^ Abhisek Ukil; Yew Ming Yeap; Kuntal Satpathi (2020). Fault Analysis and Protection System Design for DC Grids. Springer International Publishing. p. 10. ISBN 9789811529771.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several reliable references added to the article. Beagel (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With sufficient sources now added, I withdraw my nomination for AfD now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:33, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Ridge, Maryland[edit]

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

This article has been unsourced and a stub since 2007. The coordinates show a few homes with no evidence of a community. A WP: BEFORE found only Wikipedia clones. Stone Ridge doesn't show up on topos and no GNIS entry for it exists as well. However, the article says that Stone Ridge has a population of about 1,000 so I decided to bring this to afd. ColinBear (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is bizarre. If it's truly reporting a population in the census, then it should be in GNIS. But I checked, and couldn't find it either. And newspapers.com brings up "Iron Stone Ridge", a Methodist Church, and a convent. Not listed as a municipality in Frederick County. Hog Farm _Talk 17:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subject purports to be a township, but Maryland doesn't seem to have townships. I followed 340 on 2011 USGS topographic maps from Frederick to Brunswick City, and found no place called Stone Ridge, which is bizarre since something with 2400 residents in 2007 should appear. Coordinates don't show evidence of sizable population there. Hog Farm _Talk 17:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And here's the damning part - does not appear in document of 2000 census areas in Maryland. If it really reported a population in the 2000 census, it should be in there. And searching brings up a small street in the Clover Hill area of Frederick. And something with a significant population in the USA in the internet area should be findable in the internet. Page creator only edited this page and its talk page. This may be a hoax. Hog Farm _Talk 17:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Maryland does not have townships, though it does have incorporated towns; this isn't one listed for Frederick County. Looking at maps and aerials, there is just no way this was ever a CDP: it sits in a wooded area right next to an actual town. Except for various categorization tweaks and the addition of coordinates (I've queried the author of the latter), it's the contribution of a single editor who did nothing else. Nothing on Google except false hits in other states and a determination to include the Stone Ridge School of the Sacred Heart, which is some 30-40 miles away in Bethesda. My reading is hoax, at this point. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax - Neither me nor Mangoe and presumeably the nom have been unable to find proof that this exists in the claimed form. Hog Farm _Talk 18:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There's a Stone Ridge in Bel Air, and a Stoney Ridge in Carroll county, both neighbourhoods. There is no Stone Ridge that I can find here. This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GEOFEAT. Probably used proximity to Bethseda for the name. ——Serial 14:35, 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 deleted as A7, G11. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ehtisham Munir[edit]

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

Blatant non notable covert UPE article on a non notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus fail to satisfy WP:GNG nor do they satisfy WP:ANYBIO Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly non notable. No RS I could find to establish notability. Pahunkat (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - autobiographical spam on a non-notable entrepreneur with zero coverage in reliable sources independent of him Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only source is very dubious, it makes him sound like he is very famous but a quick google search doesn't return anything beyond the article itself. 15 (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the rationale by Celestina. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SELFPROMOTE. Article creator's username says it all. Excommunicato (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And not just the username — the creator happily admits this on their user page. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks to me A7/G11 speediable, even (or have I missed something?). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:BIO + WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - creator now indeffed for spamming and self-promotion. I've requested A7 and G11 deletion for this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Bidmead[edit]

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

Despite having 2 singles released by a major label, there seems to be a lack of any sort of significant coverage on him. I can't find any evidence they meet any other criteria on WP:NMUSIC. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's simply nothing out there to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:17, 22 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?} 16:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There really is nothing out there, as Alexandermcnabb stated. A BEFORE yielded nothing. This has gotta go! Doesn't meet GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. --Kbabej (talk) 23:47, 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. I'm leaning to a keep here but I'm going with no consensus. Please discuss article renaming and improvements on the talk page of the appropriate place. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map-based controller[edit]

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

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline that this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all of Coin945's AfDs from today as a procedural matter. Coin945 has nominated 72 articles in a short space of time with a questionable rationale ("long-term lack of sourcing" -- see WP:NEXIST) and no indication of WP:BEFORE, with @Uncle G finding that a number of them can have their notability confirmed on literally the first page of Google results. This is not something the relatively small group of people who work AfD can realistically handle. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eriksson, Lars; Nielsen, Lars (2014). "10.1.2 Basic control using maps". Modeling and Control of Engines and Drivelines. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 274–275. ISBN 9781118479995.
Uncle G (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here, even with the provided source, rises above dictionary defintion level. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. We need to consider the use and history or a thing, not merely what it is, and this article does not do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We now have a source. However GNG wants us to have multiple sources. Clearly this should not be speedy kept. It should be allowed to stand and given time so people can try and find more sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this related to a MAP sensor? Says it is used in internal combustion engines.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rusf10: Thanks for spotting this. No it's not related – this one is about map (mathematics) – but someone has apparently conflated the two. I removed the statement from the article. No such user (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lookup table#Data acquisition and control systems. I'm vaguely familiar with the control-systems field, and I don't think that a "map-based controller" is a "thing" in itself. Rather, it's a rather vague description of a "controller that has a lookup table", and many control system designs have one. Googling scholarly articles for "map-based control(ler)", it seems that most of those take the term as a descriptive phrase rather than a term of art, i.e. more or less a WP:DICDEF. It does not seem that the sources out there will permit writing a coherent article – the term is too vague to be useful. No such user (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to map-based control. This properly belongs as a topic in control theory, not in the theory of lookup tables. Google Scholar has nearly 500 hits for "map-based control", 26 of them in the title. Google Books also has some relevant-looking hits, and there are many others for closely-related phrases such as "map-based ECMS" (one particular application of this technique with over 100 GS hits). There should be plenty of adequate sourcing among them, although the sourcing in the current stub looks adequate for a stub. Although there are also hits for "map-based controller", they are significantly less numerous. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein: but I honestly looked for in-depth coverage, and came up empty. As I said, most papers are devoted to particular applications and take the term for granted. I opened a couple of control theory textbooks at GBooks, expecting a section or a chapter on the topic (looking for "map" or "lookup"), but did not find anything. I'm not an expert in the field, granted, but if after 15 years of existence all that we can say is that there should be plenty of adequate sourcing among them without anyone finding it, we'd be better off without this article, without prejudice of a recreation. Yes, WP:ITEXISTS, but the current single sentence amounting to a dicdef is not useful for anyone. No such user (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, to Lookup table-based control system. The term map-based controller is used almost exclusively to describe an Engine control unit, which is an application of a lookup table-based control system. This article uses the name of the former but describes it in the general terms of the latter. I can find WP:RS for both. There is obviously no point in adding lots of ECU references and ultimately duplicating that article. Here are a bunch of references, to show notability across a range of applications.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]

References

^ Kwang Hyung Lee (30 November 2006). First Course on Fuzzy Theory and Applications. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 271.
^ Ying Bai; Zvi S. Roth (2018). Classical and Modern Controls with Microcontrollers: Design, Implementation and Applications. Springer International Publishing. pp. 454–457. ISBN 9783030013820.
^ Chin-Hsing Cheng; Yuan-Yih Hsu (1991). "Excitation control of a synchronous generator using a lookup table". IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems. 27 (2): 247–254. doi:10.1109/7.78299.
^ J. Lee; K. Nam; S. Choi; S. Kwon (2007). "A Lookup Table Based Loss Minimizing Control for FCEV Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors": 175–179. doi:10.1109/VPPC.2007.4544120. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |conference= ignored (help)
^ Frederick Chee; Tyrone Fernando (2007). Closed-Loop Control of Blood Glucose. Springer. pp. 61–62. ISBN 9783540740308.
^ Tadanari Taniguchi; Michio Sugeno (2018). "Piecewise Multi-linear Model Based Lookup Table Controller for Nonlinear Systems with Input Constraints". Recent Developments and the New Direction in Soft-Computing Foundations and Applications. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 9783030471248.
^ Elisabeth A. Gambone. Pattern Recognition Control Design (pdf) (Technical report). NASA.
^ Sanjay V. Kumar; Chris H. Kim; Sachin S. Sapatnekar (2008). "Body Bias Voltage Computations for Process and Temperature Compensation" (pdf). IEEE Transactions on very large scale integration (VLSI) systems. 16 (3): 249–262.
^ Ezio Alfieri; Alois Amstutz; Lino Guzzella (2009). "Gain-scheduled model-based feedback control of the air/fuel ratio in diesel engines". Control Engineering Practice. 17 (12): 1417–1425. doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2008.12.008.
^ Krisztián Lamár; Péter Zalotay (2015). "Microcontroller implementation of lookup table-based control functions with special emphasis on sequential control according to IEC 61131-3". The International Journal of Electrical Engineering & Education. doi:10.1177/0020720915571492.
^ M. Beckerleg; R. Hogg (2016). "Evolving a lookup table based motion controller for a ball-plate system with fault tolerant capabilites": 257–262. doi:10.1109/AMC.2016.7496360. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |conference= ignored (help)
^ Istvan Kecskes (2015). "Lookup Table Based Fuzzy Controller Implementation in Low-power Microcontrollers of Hexapod Robot Szabad(ka)-II". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |conference= ignored (help)

There is also a small amount of information on lookup table-based control systems already here: Lookup table#Data acquisition and control systems. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:33, 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?} 16:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Arthur, Helsinki[edit]

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

Non-notable and wholly unremarkable ROTM city-centre hotel. The article mainly cites the hotel's own website as a source, and for a good reason: a search returns no RS secondary sources. (I must admit I was quite surprised myself, given that the hotel has been there for more than a century, but there we are.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/no RS references. RJFJR (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is listed in just about every guide book to Finland but that’s all ROTM. The article does not claim any real architectural or historical distinction for the building and I can’t find anything else. Mccapra (talk) 02:54, 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 21:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apiphily[edit]

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

Prod by @SimonP: had been removed by Vaticidalprophet with some very strange reasoning, per WP:NAD and WP:GNG, not notable, WP:BEFORE gives some Dictionary Definitions but no books mentions or anything similar sufficient CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I spent some time trying to find some references for this. It seems like a plausible topic, but from my searching this word doesn't seem to exist. Google Scholar has one hit in a translated article from 1946. Everything else on the web are Wikipedia clones. It does not exist as a word in the OED. - SimonP (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a second (and very obscure) source here: [7]. The snippet shows a parallelism with cantharophily (the pollination syndrome of beetles), which helped me make my comment in this discussion below. — Goszei (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is a hoax, a quick google search shows that the real name is Entomophily. Plus, there are no sources to back up this article. Heart ^(talk) 06:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, its parent page should list this page as one of its subspecies. Heart ^(talk) 06:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"apiphilous" is a nonce word, used here and there, and I suspect that the article creator inferred the noun from the adjective. The correct name, per loads of sources, is melittophily. Uncle G (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
with some very strange reasoning As I've mentioned before, many places, I'm perfectly happy to explain any tag removal I make. I had found some very old pre-internet hits and was looking into them further to try see what the case is, as prodding articles with potential pre-internet sources is a risky proposition. I was in the process of deciding those hits were dead ends and sending it to AfD (there are many, many articles where deletion is indicated but CSD/PROD is not, as I've noted quite recently). "There might be a there there, this needs a bit more time to be looked at before I send it off to AfD" is not, IMO, a "very strange" reasoning (we can certainly both think of stranger ones), and I'm getting a bit weary of your tendency to assume the worst in anything I do when I've repeatedly expressed a willingness to explain both my actions and what other people may be trying to get at. Vaticidalprophet 13:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We seem to have a subsection on a page on this topic: Pollination syndrome#Bee pollination (melittophily) (I am not an expert here, however). Uses a different name -- "melittophily" is well-attested in sources from what I can see. Considering the super-weak attestation of "apiphily", I not sure if it should be redirected to this section or deleted, but I lean heavily towards the latter because it because Books+Scholar combined return 2 obscure sources. — Goszei (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am suspicious of appearances of this term after 2011 because of the Wikipedia article. Use before 2011 is limited in google books to [8] from 1946. It is not a dictionary word in the dictionaries I checked. I don't think this is a hoax, but I also don't think this is sufficient for a redirect. A redirect is plausible with a couple more sources using this in this fashion.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:16, 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 21:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VAV Life Sciences[edit]

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

The sources in this advertisement are all press releases, primary (e.g. a patent), or otherwise not intellectually independent of the subject. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NCORP. Kolma8 (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article text and references describe a company going about its business. Searches find some coverage, such as this in 2014 and some announcement-based coverage about a new plant in 2017, but I don't think there is sufficient coverage overall to demonstrate attained notability here.AllyD (talk) 06:29, 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 List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABS-CBN News Advisory[edit]

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

Article of a defunct newsbrief program tagged as unsourced since March 2009, and immediate Google searches return no decent results (other than Wikipedia mirrors and fandom sites). The article is very short too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Newsbrief/breaking news branding, not notable in any way. Nate • (chatter) 17:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN: Barely found anything about the newscast. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Astig. Mccapra (talk) 02:59, 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 Jason Isbell. The consensus is that the band is not independently notable. A merge can be made using the page history. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 400 Unit[edit]

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

Potentially does not add or expand upon anything mentioned in Jason Isbell, potential for redirect to there?   Kadzi   (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made a comment about this on the article's talk page... essentially it's a duplication of the albums they made as Isbell's backing band, so a merge or redirect seems appropriate. Richard3120 (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jason Isbell, because the band is only ever described in relation to Isbell, and this article merely repeats information that can already be found over there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Lynch Jr.[edit]

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

Not notable. An executive with experience at two big companies but not much notable on their own. Most coverage of this person is exec departure/arrival press. Ew3234 (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cabayi (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Article was flagged for multiple deficiencies in 2012, including notability, which are uncorrected, and I haven't found anything of significance about this foundation. Moreover, according to Canadian government records, the foundation was dissolved five years ago: https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=4315162 -- Thomas H. White (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Telecom Hall of Fame is still active: https://opengovca.com/corporation/4337786 The corporate dissolution record cited above is for a different (albeit related) entity, a charitable foundation. BlueStraggler (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

delete this never seemed to gain traction, I could only find one article in a reputable source that has a passing mention: [9]. The fact that its dissolved is not a problem per-se but it looks like it never was notable. --hroest

Keep although it needs updates. It was certainly notable for a period in the late 2000s, although it seems to have faded away in the last decade. It has been referenced in official Government communications, including by the Minister of Industry [10]. It has been reported in Broadcaster Magazine, which was the Canadian broadcast industry journal for 70 years until it went out of print in 2015. It does crop up in big media like the Globe (cited above) and CTV but the subject matter is usually too technical to be of interest to popular news outlets. There are many other references, but most are in industry specific journals and outlets whose reputation may be hard for laypeople to gauge. BlueStraggler (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that the Telecom Hall of Fame's main impact was in live events (induction and award ceremonies, essentially) which do not leave much of an online footprint and is why they seem to have quickly faded away after the events stopped.BlueStraggler (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlueStraggler if that is the case, it should be clear from the article. The way the article is currently written, notability is not evident. --hroest 21:08, 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 12:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 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) 00:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing Joan[edit]

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

Unsourced and likely fails WP:BAND. I can't find any significant coverage of this group. Lennart97 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:BAND, all references for the band receiving M&C Fine Arts Awards are circular in nature originating from this Wikipedia article itself. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listar[edit]

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

Looks to fail WP:NCORP. Article created by a user with the same name as the company CEO, which I only noticed because they were adding content farm spam links to various articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are various similarly-named products but I am not finding evidence that this product platform is notable. AllyD (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article spends all its time to being promotional rather than establishing why Listar is notable.TH1980 (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Mohammad Idris[edit]

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

Non-notable Indian singer that fails WP:NMUSICBIO. Also appears to be a promo piece with the author uses words like "acclaimed", well-known, top-graded etc Claim to have been added to Limca Book of Records with no sources to support.

Generally everything is sketchy about this subject from WP:RS to WP:N . TheChronium (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheChronium (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Puff piece that's been rejected at AfC five times already. I think six tries is enough, don't you? - Sumanuil (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - Pretty new to Wikipedia editing, and this article came up in editing suggestions for articles whose copywriting could be improved, but I agree that it should probably be deleted (as the singer is not notable.) What's the process for this; is everything discussed as edits *to this page*? How are comments signed?

Thanks, Quicklibrary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicklibrary (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

testing signing a comment; Quicklibrary (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: before search result returned negative. This topic is far below general notability guideline. Kaspadoo (talk) 13:04, 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 redirect to Payame Noor University#Locations. Missvain (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karaj Payam Noor University[edit]

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

This currently has zero sources and under the "sources" header it points to a now deleted Iranian Wikipedia article for the same school.

Payame Noor University is a series of universities in Iran and worldwide, and Karaj Payam Noor University (or Karaj Payame Noor University) is just one location in the city of Karaj, Iran. It seems like anything relevant from this could be merged to the existing Payame Noor University article? Jooojay (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Payame_Noor_University#Locations. I could not find sufficient English language sources to show that this campus is independently notable. The redirect (or merge) could have been boldly done without bringing it to AfD, per WP:BEFORE. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are more than 500 campuses for Payame Noor University - do they all need redirect? Also there are different naming conventions being used. Jooojay (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the sub-topic of a wider article it's appropriate per WP:RPURPOSE, unless any of the other campuses are independently notable. I doubt that any editor would create them though, and even if they did it wouldn't make the top 3 articles with the most redirects. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have the editing rights for this type of redirect unfortunately. Jooojay (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 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) 00:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Galgotias Business School[edit]

(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. VV 09:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. VV 09:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. VV 09:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 09:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 09:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing even close to WP:ORGDEPTH found; I found a brief profile page on Learners' Gateway, another at College Dekho and a passing mention at Seasonal Magazine. This doesn't even pass WP:GNG let alone WP:NORG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Kumari[edit]

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

Fails WP:Author and W:GNG. Just one reliable source [11] that happens to have a byline but the article is full of what she is saying and hence not independent. Also, another SPA>Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Author and W:GNG per nom. No significant coverages available for Swati Kumari. Chirota (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. The sources appear to be promotional and would not constitute WP:SIGCOV. VV 15:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Willis (news producer)[edit]

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

Non-notable news producer. Does not meet GNG. Natg 19 (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a common name so searching was a little tricky, but I was unable to find anything at all. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keisha Morris[edit]

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

She seems to be only known for being married to a notable person. She had a bit part in a film as "Lisa's Friend #1". Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was created by a sockpuppet so maybe this can be speedy deleted? SL93 (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She has at least two features in magazines, and while they cover her in some detail they're more about asking her about Tupac. Here are the links for others to judge. [12] [13] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTINHERITED. All of the coverage that I can find on her is interviews about her relationship with Tupac. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 15:17, 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) 00:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhrubo Banerjee[edit]

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

~~A non notable director who fails FILMMAKER. Also fails GNG since there is no evidence of notability by means of reliable sourcee Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)~~ Blocked sockpuppet --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable director Rondolinda (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delere: A quick google search found that the subject doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources. ColinBear (talk) 23:33, 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) 16:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arman Darvish[edit]

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

Non notable actor who fails to satisfy any criterion WP:NACTOR and generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, thus WP:GNG isn’t satisfied either. Celestina007 (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this article in a search but most of the other relevant hits were just rehashings of the same press release, which do not confer notability. I have checked the Farsi Wiki; there's nothing of value there. Thank you Celestina007 for trimming the article down; it was a borderline G11 when I first saw it. Please ping me if better sources are found. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 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) 16:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Peeples[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE finds "Roderick+Peeples" 18 news results, all of which are passing mentions in theater reviews. The only external link is to an IMDB page, which is user-generated and not a reliable source. I could find nothing else about him online that came close to being a WP:RS. jp×g 23:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. jp×g 23:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. jp×g 23:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a lengthy review from the 2003 Illinois Shakespeare Festival, but it's solely about his King Lear performance. Peeples appears to be a seasoned working actor, which is an accomplishment, but I can't find any significant coverage about him to support notability, much less to provide the most basic biographical details. Schazjmd (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hossain Mohammad Salim[edit]

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

Fails NPOL and GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they lead organizations — notability for that is a question of showing that they've been the subject of reliable source coverage about their work in that role to establish its significance, not just of verifying that the person exists. But the only source cited here at all is the organization's own self-published content about itself, which is not the kind of sourcing it takes. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If his family background and education gave readers insight into his leadership of Hezbut Tawheed, it could be merged there, but I can't see that it does. Certainly no independent sources talk about it. The only independent source I could find that even mentions his name is quoting Wikipedia.[14] Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali script and transliteration variants, found no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, so not notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taha Duymaz[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Non-notable. Kemalcan (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend @Þjarkur: and I added new reference. He does pass WP:GNG. That’s why my opinion is keep. Baran Ahmet 12:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it does not meet requirements for WP:GNG. Just to note that this article was speedy deleted @Turkish Wiki. --Kemalcan (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There do appear to be quite a few reliable sources that describe him as an internet phenomenon, including some TV segments [15][16][17][18] with a million views, so WP:GNG does appear to be met. I could see a point being made that this coverage doesn't indicate lasting notability or encyclopedicness, or that the coverage is too "soft" / human-interest-story like to indicate notability. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first 5 sources are literally interviews. 6th one is a source that criticises him because he released a song to try to become famous. The text ends with "Nice Greek song…". Currently he is on the news for all the bad reasons: he swore to one of his fans which resulted in his account being taken down. 7th and 8th sources are about that. His account is now back, but there aren't any sources on that. 9th source is talking about how his story is inspirational and stuff. For the 10th source, I think we all can read English and WP:GNG, which says "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Popularity doesn't equal to notability. Every person who shows up on Turkish TV, no matter the views, is not notable. Apart from this, I would also like to echo what was said in the Turkish AfD: we are sort of "done" with having to have multiple discussions about these non-notable "phenomenons". ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 11:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I should disagree with the creator's argument. As Styyx said, some sources are mere interviews, and even though the publishers alone may be notable, the nature of the content makes them primary references rather than secondary independent sources. Additionally, he has been in the news due to some controversies related to his manner and conduct. This may bring his name up but the fuss will eventually die out; another indication that he's not notable. Keivan.f^Talk 19:59, 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. Missvain (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitality Financial and Technology Professionals[edit]

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

This is a promotional web page about a non-notable organization. Every reference is either a mere note, or from the organization, or related sources, or trade sources that publish promotional material. DGG ( talk ) 11:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the organization were notable (and I'm not seeing that), the content here is so refbombed with PR fluff that a WP:TNT would be warranted. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarangabad High School[edit]

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

Mentions, listings, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. আকাশ নাথ সরকার (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. আকাশ নাথ সরকার (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Redirect: I think it would be possible, given the date of foundation, which implies the existence of hard copy sources, to make a case for a Weak keep. Failing that, however, Redirect to Maheshtala.Ingratis (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly the current sources that we have access to are severally lacking. Maybe there's hard copies of sources out there, but unless someone can provide them we shouldn't assume there is and Wikipedia isn't a bibliography anyway. At the end of the day an article can't just be nothing but a few sentences of basic, run of the mill information and a list of books that might or might not have in-depth details, but no one has access to. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@আকাশ নাথ সরকার: I'm wondering if there are databases of Bengali newspapers one can look at? One issue with COVID is that it may be hard to check print libraries at this time. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, no references provided satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Jeet Dev^talk 06:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. 42.110.142.5 (talk) 06:06, 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. Unfortunately it seems all the work has gone into determining notability after the second re-list. There have been sources presented with claims of in-depth coverage, but analysis of those sources outside the presentor is lacking. Therefore I find no consensus. There should therefore be no time limit for renomination, although I would recommend a careful examination of the presented sources and a detailed explanation as to why they do not convey notability before doing so. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qvwm[edit]

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

I can find no significant, in depth coverage to indicate this was a notable piece of software. It existed, but it appears it never reached notability. 2017 No-Consensus Batch AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bspwm StarM 15:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It actually sounds like the kind of Window manager I would want for Linux, but that isn't the criteria. I did some searching, and found several mentions in articles and in several books (foreign languages, but that is fine). The problem is, I couldn't find any significant coverage, just passing mentions. Many Unix/Linux programs are notable by themselves, like Apache, Samba, bash, etc but this doesn't appear to be one of them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find much that would justify this article's existence. --Nemov (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems obvious that this and all of the others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bspwm should be merged, because most of the one-paragraph articles can actually be read consecutively to form a narrative, especially the ones on softwares developed by the same single person. X window manager#Virtual window managers seems to be lacking a break-out article unlike the other types. Uncle G (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it had to come down to keep vs delete, I'd go with keep on the basis of the Linux Planet and Linux Format coverage and the discussion of the WM in Linux System Administration: A user's guide. I prefer the idea of merging to an article that has coverage of several of the WMs of marginal significance as proposed by Uncle G more, though. Would X window manager#Virtual window managers be the best target? Isn't it also a stacking window manager? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per sources: Proffitt, Brian (2001-01-02), Linux Format (2). 2009-03-10 [First published in 2000]. and book: Linux System Administration: A User's Guide Marcel Gagné (2002), 9780201719345 pp153,4. sufficient for notability. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a bit more information, since those aren't books on my shelf. I believe you that they are mentioned, but how extensive is the coverage? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't seem to me like the sources were evaluated and found wanting, since two of them were dead and there were no archives provided. I have found archive URLs for two of them (TuxRadar and LinuxPlanet), which both seem completely fine to me. I've also added another source that talks at least a little bit about qvwm. jp×g 22:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to stacking window manager. The coverage in independent sources appears to be too slight to hope that we will ever have a good self-sufficient article here. Since the WM allows overlapping windows and predates compositing WMs on X windows (see Compositing window manager#History), it must be a stacking window manager, so I think that is a reasonable target for the redirect. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the suggested target article is not structured correctly for the merge and a merge here would be a bad choice. If Qvwm were a tiling window manager a suitable merge target would exist. You seem to has used WP:OR to determine it must be a stacking window manager. AfD is a poor place for merge discussions and implementation of poor merges, generally this might be for WikiProject level. Therefore I need to oppose this good faith merge !vote. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: while I think my inference is sound, using it to determine the link target would be WP:SYNTH. I retract this !vote. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:20, 12 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 and redirect to Finger snapping. as a plausible search term ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fingersnapping[edit]

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

This article has been around 16 years without a single cite. Looking around, I don't see reliable sources discussing it, just a few forums, thus it fails WP:GNG. The technique probably exists, but if there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources, that point is moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to Finger snapping. This article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICOTHER. I attempted to do WP:Before research on the topic before I voted. This does not appear to have enough significant coverage on the topic to be an article. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to Finger snapping. I can find no reliable sources discussing the term in a way that supports the information in the article. Thus, with absolutely no reliable sources, the content of the article should not be kept. After deletion, however, the term should be used as a Redirect to Finger snapping, as a plausible search term. Rorshacma (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are loads of books on drumming, from a full USMC manual to Bill Bachman's books, and this technique probably has a proper name, but it isn't this, which appears to mix up two different terminologies for two different types of drum, and a quick review finds nothing to support this as a stick technique for diddles. Bachman has a name, for a very similar technique, but xe acknowledges that it is xyr own coined name. And there a much better sources around with proper formal treatments of this stuff, using concepts like "fulcrum". Uncle G (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward M. Flynn[edit]

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

The two best WP:GNG sources in the article are [19][20], and in my opinion these are both borderline and have issues. WP:BEFORE not turning up additional good sources. As a local politician, does not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and the only opponent link is red. That should tell you enough. Quantupediholic (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. (I'm also willing to reconsider if somebody improves the article before this discussion concludes.) Boston is a large and important enough city that we would typically deem its city councillors to pass WP:NPOL #2 — out of all Flynn's colleagues on Boston City Council, there's only one who doesn't currently have an article, and even that one is a recently-elected councillor who just doesn't have one yet. However, that "inherent" notability does not mean that you're entitled to park an article on primary and junk sourcing instead of real reliable source coverage in the likes of the Boston Globe or WBZ, and it does not mean that you're entitled to write it like a campaign brochure instead of a proper encyclopedia article.
In other words, he's a valid article topic in principle, but the content and sourcing shown in this version of an article about him is not cutting it. So if somebody can do better, then bring it on, but it can't stand looking like this. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 15:17, 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. Going with the WP:NOTTRAVEL/WP:NOTDIR and WP:NLIST argument with this one. Missvain (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Community Transit bus routes[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a local bus travel guide. No indication anywhere that these bus routes are notable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list of bus routes serving part of a major U.S. metropolitan area. It does not violate WP:NOTTRAVEL since a description of whether the route runs on weekends does not make Wikipedia a travel guide, nor is a description of these routes' termini (however, the notation under the "Route 115" row to "use route 116" on Sundays is not encyclopedic). These descriptions are defining traits of the bus routes, not a "travel guide". Furthermore, the nominator says there is "no indication anywhere that these bus routes are notable". This is false, since there are at least two bus routes with articles listed on that very page, both of which are substantial articles with many reliable secondary sources. Further, I have found several hundred news articles for Community Transit routes, and there may well be more news articles and other secondary sources on other databases. Epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone needs to know if buses run on weekend, they should obtain the up to date timetable instead of going to Wikipeida. Also the two bus routes with articles are BRT services, which are entirely different to the other routes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Community Transit is the notable subject, not the list of routes. All significantly covered routes should be incorporated into that main article. Nweil (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some bus routes in this list would be notable enough for their own standalone entries (and two already do), which makes the list fairly useful. As is the explanation of the route numbering system, which would clog up the main article (which is already in need of splitting to maintain readable size). Sounder Bruce 06:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could use more references, not deletion. Works in conjunction with its parent article. Again, the nominator seems motivated against bus route list articles in general. Julius177 (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really seeing a policy based reason there. Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see deletion discussion here. The nominator is on a crusade of bad-faith WP:IDL deletion nominations, each lacking policy-based arguments, lacking even a shred of prior discussion over whether the list articles in general have merit, and taking the offense against each keep voter's arguments. $ɱ$ (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is the author of that article which is also up for AfD. It's not bad faith, not even in the slightest. And I've clearly laid out the policy related points that makes the article worthy of discussion for deletion, as is this article too. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is no information within this article that would not be found on a bus schedule. The "Keep" arguments are really weak.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NLIST since independent sources don't seem to discuss this list as an entity. A list is only notable if it's at least found in sources not associated with the agency. I also find the WP:NOTTRAVEL/WP:NOTDIR argument convincing: the content unsurprisingly reads more like something from the agency's website than anything else. Most of the keep arguments seem to be more "I like it" and ad hominem than anything else, so I don't find them particularly persuasive. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:24, 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. Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL/WP:NOTDIR/WP:NLIST. Missvain (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Transit Authority of River City bus routes[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a local bus travel guide. No indication anywhere that these bus routes are notable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see deletion discussion here. The nominator is on a crusade of bad-faith WP:IDL deletion nominations, each lacking policy-based arguments, lacking even a shred of prior discussion over whether the list articles in general have merit, and taking the offense against each keep voter's arguments. $ɱ$ (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is the author of that article which is also up for AfD. It's not bad faith, not even in the slightest. And I've clearly laid out the policy related points that makes the article worthy of discussion for deletion, as is this article too. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTTRAVEL. As an aside, there is not rule against nominating multiple articles that are about similar topics. They were nominated separately, but if the were WP:BUNDLEd, I know there would be complaints about that too.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:48, 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. Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL/WP:NOTDIR/WP:NLIST. Missvain (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of RTC Transit routes[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a local bus travel guide. No indication anywhere that these bus routes are notable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a local bus guide. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Azuredivay (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appropriate deletion given justification above. Nweil (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see deletion discussion here. The nominator is on a crusade of bad-faith WP:IDL deletion nominations, each lacking policy-based arguments, lacking even a shred of prior discussion over whether the list articles in general have merit, and taking the offense against each keep voter's arguments. $ɱ$ (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is the author of that article which is also up for AfD. It's not bad faith, not even in the slightest. And I've clearly laid out the policy related points that makes the article worthy of discussion for deletion, as is this article too. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Ajf773 is currently nominating multiple transit systems in multiple states of which only users near said areas could possibly know if information is current and relevant. Jraywalkup (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2021‎ (UTC) We need to keep this article.[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTTRAVEL--Rusf10 (talk) 22:49, 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. ✗plicit 03:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Britt Burton[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, can't say I found too many good sources through a Google search. JTtheOG (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any reliable, independent sources. Most of the top results are user-generated content. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 15:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 16:37, 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 merge to Gentleman (1993 film)#Soundtrack. Missvain (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ottagathai Kattiko[edit]

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

Predominantly unsourced; could be merged with Gentleman (1993 film)#Soundtrack. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gentleman (1993 film)#Soundtrack per WP:NSONG. Stub article can be covered in the album regardless of its notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:57, 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. Passing mentions in various outlets like CNN, etc, but, literally a mere mention. Appears to not meet our general notability guidelines at this time. Missvain (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mut Mee Guesthouse[edit]

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

Tagged as possibly not notable since 2009. There are two references. One is to a Guardian article on tourism in Thailand which mentions the guesthouse and quotes the owner. The other is to an Amazon page for a book which is apparently partly set at the guesthouse - neither book nor author have a Wiki article. The Dead Boys (novel) by Richard Calder (writer) is also said in the article to be set partly at this guesthouse, although that is not referenced in this article and not mentioned in the article on the book. There are references in listings in guidebooks but I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Tacyarg (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It has professional reviews on travel-guide websites like Travelfish[21], and I suppose would be in most guidebooks, but online coverage seems otherwise lacking. Given its history I suspect it might have been the subject of some press coverage back in the 90s, but that's hard to find out. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean before it opened in 2000, that is 21 years ago. Or is the article just plain wrong?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article said "has been in operation for 21 years" at its earliest version in 2009, so it would have opened in 1988 (as confirmed by their about page[22]). There are quite a few Google Books results that are 1990s guidebooks. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:56, 28 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?} 08:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I would expect coverage outside travel guides, unless the latter was quite extensive. Sounds like a nice enough place, but not notable. Mangoe (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, after much-extended time for discussion. Improvements suggested by DevaCat1 are certainly now free to be implemented. BD2412 T 06:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Akram[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources and notable achievements fails GNG and NCRICKET. Setreis (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC) — Confirmed and blocked sockpuppet account. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He does pass NCRICKET in its current state having played 9 FC and 2 LA games. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 9 FC and 2 LA matches, however I'm only really finding match reports from his club cricket. Most of his cricket was for a uni side so I doubt there will be any real coverage anywhere else. No redirect either as he played for 3 different sides. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As set out in my comments below, there is quite a bit of coverage in Wisden specific of him; in 2004-06, Wisden had coverage of all of the FC matches played by Cambs UCCE. DevaCat1 (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment, coverage of the match is not coverage of the individual. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 11 matches (9 FC/2 LA), with 2 centuries in first-class cricket. Meets WP:CRIN and there's probably a mention in Wisden of his centuries in 2004 and 2005 (plus a 98 in 2003). StickyWicket (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable: scored a first-class hundred which was reported in The Times on 14th May 2004 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/akram-century-has-middlesex-floundering-wxsbwk3d5g5 Piecesofuk (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The Times appears to be good, but I'm not seeing any additional coverage in my BEFORE search. Another good article would get this into week keep territory for me. SportingFlyer T·C 19:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He has a lot of references in the various match and seasonal reports in Wisden- on a quick check at least p. 851 (2004), p. 853 (2004), p. 908 (2005), p. 920 (2006), all of which are more significant than scorecard coverage. His twin brother played in the same Cambridge UCCE team as him, which bizarrely is also not referenced in the article (Arfan was also pretty successful with both bat and ball). I'm not going to amend the article now, as there's too much risk it will be deleted and the work will be wasted, but if the AfD is withdrawn I'll expand to something more meaningful than the pretty minimal article that's there right now. DevaCat1 (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are his entries in Wisden substantial enough to contribute to SIGCOV? Being more significant than a database entry doesn't make a source automatically qualify for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in my view they are. I would also work in the Times article referenced above by Piecesofuk, but it's paywalled; the lead para is all about him, though. I would have thought a combination of coverage in Wisden across three different almanacks and The Times, along with a range of more statistical type coverage would be sufficient to pass GNG, even if nothing more is found in offline sources. DevaCat1 (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Times article provides no significant coverage; it is routine match coverage, merely stating he scored a maiden hundred and mentioning his twin. Given the expanded content, it is clear that the Wisden coverage is also little more than routine match coverage. In other words, there is no significant coverage of him; only a couple of trivial snippets of information among run-of-the-mill sports reporting. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, you and I disagree. Wisden coverage is highly significant, and many regular first-class professionals get barely two or three mentions a season, as I've found when researching other articles about players with international appearances in their domestic matches. I don't even understand the point of you replying to me, as you never seek consensus, merely to attempt to bully me off the site with specious and aggressive arguments. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of an aside to the discussion, but the claim that regular first-class professionals only get a couple mentions a season is consistent with my "short tail" argument about why so many cricketers are currently at AfD - the most famous cricketers get heaps of coverage, but significant coverage of other players, even good players, drops off rather quickly and can be difficult to find. I've even found local cricketers may actually receive more coverage than some professionals since their local newspaper will write about their local amateur team! Relevant to the discussion, online Wisden biography has no text, so I'm assuming you're claiming there's significant coverage of him in the print edition? SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't even look at online sources most of the time; I have a significant cricket reference library and use that. Online sources are dire for cricket. There is Cricinfo and, erm, nothing else; and even Cricinfo only has meaningful coverage since c. 2005. This means that the WP:BEFORE process is an abject failure, as there is continual searching for stuff that doesn't exist online, even when there is piles of stuff offline. A solid county pro (say, 45 wickets and 300 runs in FC cricket per season) will barely merit a mention in Wisden beyond scorecard entries- it's basically 50s, 4fers or better to even get a quick note in the match report. There is also a significant geographic bias- if you are the 30th best first-class cricketer in Pakistan or Sri Lanka, but don't play internationally, you will barely get a mention even in scorecards in hardcopy sources in English. This is a stark contrast with (say) the NFL, where the college setup and draft process means blanket coverage for the 1000th best player in the US at any one time. There are lots of genuinely trivial cricketers on wikipedia, partly because of the inclusion of List A cricket as a qualifying threshold, which brings up piles of players who play one match for Dorset. But we're dealing here with a player with two first-class centuries, and having coverage in The Times dismissed as trivial. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do the Wisden sources say, specifically? He doesn't come up in a book search. SportingFlyer T·C 19:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the rest of The Times coverage beyond the first paragraph goes on to detail his performance in other matches and gives strong biographical info, it's definitely not looking like SIGCOV. Seems pretty routine from the snippet I can view. JoelleJay (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my and others' arguments above. JoelleJay (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Turns out I have access to The Times. Here is the entirety of the article, which is almost exclusively a match report failing SIGCOV:
FENNER’S (second day of three): Middlesex, with all second-innings wickets in hand, are 52 runs ahead of Cambridge UCCE

A SCORCHING maiden first-class hundred by Adnan Akram on a sun-blessed day at Fenner’s humbled Middlesex, who must decide today whether they want batting practice or to make a game of it. They may be loath to set a target the way their attack was mauled by Akram, who took his overnight 36 to 128 from 133 balls. He drove, cut, pulled and hooked, hitting 20 fours and a six. Melvyn Betts‘s medium pace went for 50 from four overs, including nine no-balls.

Akram, who along with his twin, Arfan, has often proved a frustrating enigma for Chris Scott, the Cambridge coach. added 129 with Phil Edwards, the nightwatchman. Edwards, who batted 3½ hours and 190 balls for his 43, then put on 103 with Tom Webley, the captain. Webley looked set for a century himself when he was out to a faint edge to the wicketkeeper on 93.

His declaration left Middlesex with a two-run lead and an hour to bat.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the comments made by AssociateAffiliate, with 11 matches played, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:37, 24 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?} 08:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment. Since the article in The Times is clearly routine match coverage, we'll need to find two actual SIGCOV sources for this BLP. Can someone (DevaCat1? Wjemather?) provide the extent of his coverage in Wisden? JoelleJay (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wisden contains a summary report of the university season, and I suspect the sum total of his coverage will be passing mentions in those. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to an appropriate list article if it exists) due to lacking SIGCOV (per the extensive search provided above) and failing GNG - passing a (relatively weak) SNG is not sufficient, as WP:NSPORTS says: "conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept."... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Run-of-the-mill domestic cricket player, apparently that is enough to meet WP:NCRICKET. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:31, 14 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. Missvain (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gan mao ling[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 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) 10:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear violation of our rule against dictionary definitions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete verifiability says that articles need to have sources. That is clearly not met here. A collection of herbs that is used for medicinal purposes is clearly something that we could have an article on. However we would need sources to show that it is notable. It is the burden of those who want to keep the article to produce such sources. The search I conducted came up with an Amazon add for the product, and a very brief mention in a very comprehensive dictionary of Chinese herbs. This is not at all the level of sourcing we would need to show that a thing is a notable product.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if the product is real, why is it notable?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sources added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sourcing the article, SailingInABathTub (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Somerville, Robert, ed. (1997). The Drug & Natural Medicine Advisor: The Complete Guide to Alternative & Conventional Medications. Alexandria, Virginia: Time Life. p. 358. ISBN 0-7835-4938-5. Retrieved 2021-04-17.
  The encyclopedia has an entry about Gan Mao Ling.
  The book notes that Gan Mao Ling is also sold as "Su Xiao Ganmaoling" and that its English name is "Common Cold Effective Remedy". The book notes, "The Chinese patent formula Gan Mao Ling is used to treat the common cold or the flu if it is accompanied by any of the following symptoms: [list of symptoms]. One of the actions of this formula is to help the body rid itslef of the cold or influenza virus." The book notes that no side effects are expected. The book notes that ingredients are: ilex, evodia, dyer's woad root, chrysanthemum, vitex, honeysuckle flower, and menthol crystal.
2. Elias, Jason; Ketcham, Katherine (1998). The Five Elements of Self-Healing: Using Chinese Medicine for Maximum Immunity, Wellness, and Health. New York: Harmony Books. p. 191. ISBN 0-517-70487-0. Retrieved 2021-04-17.
  The book notes: "Gan Mao Ling Pian ("Common Cold Effective Tablets"): Herbalists in China and throughout the world rely on this formula to prevent or combat the symptoms of colds and flus. The Emperor herb in this formula is isatis, which is famous for its antiviral qualities. Attending herbs (ilex root, evodia fruit, chrysanthemum flower, vitext fruit, lonicera flower, and menthol crystals) help the immune system neutralize and eliminate the invading pathogens. They relieve accute flare-ups of Wind/Cold (chills, aching muscles, nasal congestion, stuffy nose, sore throat, stiff neck and shoulders) and/or Wind/Heat (fever, swollen glands, headache). Take four pills three times daily, and continue until the symptoms have abated."
3. Bruning, Nancy Pauline (1998). Natural Medicine for Colds and Flu. New York: Dell Publishing. p. 134. ISBN 978-0-440-22523-2. Retrieved 2021-04-17.
  The book notes on page 134: "Two increasingly popular patented Chinese herb formulations are Gan Mao Ling and Yin Chiao San. They come in easy-to-take tablets and are sold in Chinese pharmacies and herb shops as well as health food stores. Gan Mao Ling generally is thought to be more appropriate for colds and contains herbs reputed to be antiviral and antibiotic. Many practitioners recommend this formula during a cold to ease symptoms and during the cold season as a preventive."
4. Neustaedter, Randall (2005). Flu: Alternative Treatments and Prevention. Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books. pp. 44–45. ISBN 1-55643-568-1. Retrieved 2021-04-17.
  The book notes on page 44: "Gan Mao Ling, a remedy that was developed in the last fifty years, is another well-known formula for flu characterized by sinus congestion, yellow nasal discharge, chills, stiff neck and back, sore throat, and swollen glands. The primary ingredients are Ilex pubescens and Evodia rutecarpa, both of which have strong antiviral effects." The book notes Gan Mao Ling ingredients on page 42: Ilex (antirval), Evodia (antiviral), Chrysanthemum ("disperses Wind and clears Heat"), Vitex ("disperses Wind and clears Heat"), Isatis ("drains Heat"), and Lonicera ("clears Wind and Heat").
5. Williams, J. E. (2002). Viral Immunity: A 10-Step Plan to Enhance Your Immunity against Viral Disease Using Natural Medicines. Charlottesville, Virginia: Hampton Roads Publishing Company. p. 37. ISBN 1-57174-265-4. Retrieved 2021-04-17.
  The book notes: "In fact, there are many excellent traditional Chinese remedies for cold symptoms. One of the most widely used is gan mao ling. It comes in tablets, tea, and instant granules (called ganmao tuire chongji or gan mao char). These remedies can be easily obtained in any Chinese herb store, from most acupuncturists' offices, or by mail from one of the resources listed in appendix E. Their use is explained in detail in part 2."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gan Mao Ling to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Cunard ! VocalIndia (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the sources in this discussion aren't in the article - without improvement, the article isn't worth keeping... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It depends on how we want to classify this article. If this is considered an article about a medicinal herb, I am not really sure that the sources pass WP:MEDRS. If we're writing about this as a historical or cultural or botanical perspective, then those sources might be acceptable. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Biomedical v. general information says, "Biomedical information requires sources complying with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not." As long as the article is edited to have all biomedical information removed or sourced to MEDRS-compliant sources, then the general information can remain after being sourced to RS sources. The article can be retained with only general information even if none of the sources pass WP:MEDRS. Cunard (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 08:32, 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) 17:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Moghimi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE - "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." and, in fact, all other criteria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this page should not be deleted 1- Because Hasan Moghimi has made great impact on Iranian wild life with publishing several pictorial encyclopedias of several Iranian provinces. 2- The page is improving day by day by adding sources. Two awards were already added and couple of others will be soon. 3- Some of his pictures are featured and used on Wikipedia (https://en.wikirug.org/wiki/WikiRug:Picture_of_the_day/December_2020) 4- There are several Wiki pages with much less information or impact without being candidate for deletion, I wonder why this on is. A few samples are here (there are a lot).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asghar_Bichareh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morteza_Poursamadi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naveed_Nour

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyman_Hooshmandzadeh

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erfan2017 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Erfan2017: Please base your argument on the notability guidelines, like WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Usage of photos on WikiRug and Wikipedia are not considered factors in deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: Thank you very much for your comment. I'm not the expert one in creating Wikipedia pages -yet, but I'm sure with kind guidance of expert users like you, I would have less challenges going forward. Anyways, regarding WP:GNG notability guidelines. Hasan Moghimi returns 4050 search results on Google (in comparison with Naveed Nour that returns 2470 (mostly unrelated results) in Persian language (both are Iranian Photographers):

1: Search for Hasan Moghimi: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86+%D9%85%D9%82%DB%8C%D9%85%DB%8C%22+%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B3&client=firefox-b-d&ei=R4WAYI-nCMbEsAWD1rKoDA&oq=%22%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86+%D9%85%D9%82%DB%8C%D9%85%DB%8C%22+%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B3&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBAgAEBMyBggAEB4QEzoHCAAQsAMQEzoLCAAQsAMQDRAeEBM6CwgAELADEAgQHhATUNsyWNsyYJg5aAFwAHgAgAGDAYgB1gGSAQMxLjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6yAEDwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwjP5qKNkZDwAhVGIqwKHQOrDMUQ4dUDCA0&uact=5

2- Search for Naveed Nour: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22%D9%86%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%AF+%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B1%22+%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B3

Furthermore, Hasan is mentioned in the most related and most important organization regarding wild life in the country, that is "Department of Environment of IR Iran" (please see the references) several times, also he is mentioned in the Iranian national news agency (IRNA). and his pictures are used in several reliable news agencies including Iranian National Radio and TV website (IRIB) (please see the references). There are not any weblogs, or twitter or other personal form of media among references. In my latest search, besides his role in UNDP report about Central Zagros Project, I found several English sources (references added). I hope they are good enough to present notability according to Wikipedia guidelines.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 08:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doing a google search found no significant coverage. Fails GNG. ColinBear (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

A short explanation: Since this article is temporarily restored for discusion, I would like to make some clarifications about the non-English references (you can use google translate to see the English version). Ref. 1 is a bio of Hasan with pictures of 6 of his books. References 2,5 and 6 are about awards (2 of them on IRNA that is Iranian official news agency and one on Iran Book News Agency). Reference 4 is an interview with Hasan as master of photography by a provincial paper [Isfahan.e Emrooz]. References 7,8, 10-17 are samples of Hasan's photos that are used in different news agencies and organizations (local or foreign). Reference 9 is a reference book published by Department of Environment (Iran) that is the place for the best pictures. Reference 18 is a joint project by UNDP and Department of Environment (Iran) that Hasan participated as master of photography. Finally reference 21 belongs to association of photographers of Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism that introduces Hasan as a professional member. As updated information: In Feb. 2021 he is nominated for a national award and his photos are going to be presented in a group digital expo in Toronto, Canada in June.Erfan2017 (talk) 16:11, 15 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Hatchens (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Paints[edit]

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

Lacks WP:ORGCRIT/WP:SIGCOV/WP:SIRS. It does satisfy WP:LISTED... but the page mostly contains news of the company's latest IPO, fundraising activities, owners and investors. Nothing encyclopedic about the company. Hence, calling for an Afd discussion to generate a general consensus. - Hatchens (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most sources limited to routine coverage, mainly related to the company's IPO. Only one reliable source from Forbes India. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:LISTED with this article in Forbes as well as analyst reports like [23] [24] [25] [26] M4DU7 (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per M4DU7's rationale. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I concur with M4DU7's assessment! Most of the analyst reports do mention the name of the authors and they are independent. I would like to pull out this AfD nomination. Requesting admin(s) for a closure. -Hatchens (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Missvain (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Government Islamia College, Chiniot[edit]

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

Non-notable school, fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Chiniot as its largest educational institution. Batmanthe8th (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. scope_creep^Talk 18:06, 27 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?} 08:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Missvain (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E4e Inc[edit]

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

Fails NCORP. I was rooting for the ET article but that's PTI. The Business Standard piece is also a press release. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:11, 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?} 08:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darling Buds of May (album)[edit]

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

This album does not meet WP:NALBUMS criteria. The band Faulter is also up for deletion. No news can be found on the album nor the band. Lesliechin1 (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lesliechin1 (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - found independent reviews in AllMusic, Punknews.org, and another one, unsure about the reliability of the last source. --Ashley yoursmile! 12:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources indicated by Ashleyyoursmile are reliable. Though coverage isn't that much, I also found another reliable source about the album: [27]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Superastig. --Ashley yoursmile! 16:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one is definitely a borderline case, but I generally like to err on the side of "keep." It's certainly a little-known band (and likely a little-known album) but there are enough sources still out there to build the page out more or at least add a few references to legitimize it. Gargleafg (talk) 21:49, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faulter[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BAND criteria. I was not able to found any news about this band. Lesliechin1 (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lesliechin1 (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lesliechin1 (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. All I could find are reviews of their albums- [28] and [29]. This and this are merely passing mentions/routine coverage. I'm seeing lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The recordings have not charted on national music charts, or received certifications or accolades. --Ashley yoursmile! 12:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator and the reason given above. Thanks. JayzBox (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) nearlyevil 665 13:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Goodfellow (artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable artist with only primary sources for attesting notability. Fail of WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. nearlyevil 665 07:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 07:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His self-portrait All Dressed Up For Mam and Dad has been nominated for the 2012 BP Portrait Award, which is the the most important portrait prize, and is reputedly one of the most prestigious competitions in contemporary art. It has been a substantial part of a major exhibition held at the National Portrait Gallery [30],[31]. His work Treason of the Scholars has received substantial commentary- The Herald, Wall Street International magazine, and The Spectator. Additionally, this article mentions that he is "acclaimed for his landscape paintings". This article in The Times also lists his work. So he passes criteria 4 of WP:ARTIST. --Ashley yoursmile! 11:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to I Prevail. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Burkheiser[edit]

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

While there are some sources on the subject online that are not referenced in the article, the subject is still a fail of WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. His band is notable but WP:NOTINHERITED. nearlyevil 665 07:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 07:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:NSINGER and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect: article creator (previously editing as an anon IP?) doesn't understand the guidelines yet. Deb (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I Prevail: Burkheiser itself fails GNG. However since he a member of the band, it would be appropriate to have the page redirect to I Prevail because it could still be a searchable term. ColinBear (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I Prevail: Fails WP:NMUSIC. He's only ever been in I Prevail, so does not qualify under a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. I found a bunch of interviews, but all but this one are about his band. Redirecting to the band is reasonable, since someone searching for information on him would probably find some in the band article. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 15:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I Prevail - Pointless article that merely announces the singer's existence, and he has never done anything notable outside the band. As stated by the previous voters, his name could be a search term. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to band, as standard for musicians who are not independently notable. Editor seems to specialize in edit-warring on that exact type of article, and I predict a rather short future tenure if that continues. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to band article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I Prevail - clearly the singer does not pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Redirect to the group is appropriate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:33, 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

120 Days (album)[edit]

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

This album does not meet WP:NALBUMS criteria. Lesliechin1 (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lesliechin1 (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Voted album of the year by 65 music critics in Norway and won a Spellemannsprisen award (national Grammy variety) for rock album of the year. Geschichte (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NALBUMS. The album has won a major award, and has received significant critical attention. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: top ten hit in their native country, reviews from AllMusic and Pitchfork already in the article, and there are also reviews from NME [32] and the New York Times [33] at least... and that's even before you get to the awards. Richard3120 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to pass WP:NALBUM per sources provided by Richard3120. And it won a major award -Xclusivzik (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources given by Richard3120 and the award it received. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:43, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

120 Days[edit]

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

~~Does not meet WP:BAND criteria.~~ Lesliechin1 (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am withrdawing my nomination based on the Spellemannsprisen award, which would make them meet WP:BAND. However, please also review the album nomination Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/120_Days_(album). Lesliechin1 (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lesliechin1 (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lesliechin1 (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, meets WP:BAND#8 among others, as the Spellemannsprisen is the Grammy of 120 Days's country, i.e. the single biggest music award in Norway. Probably also meets #1, 2 and 11 without me having checked that. Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to speedy keep as I added a reference to 120 Days' entry in a general encyclopedia, namely the Great Norwegian Encyclopedia. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no objection to speedy close here. Plainly met WP:MUSIC at the time of nomination. Chubbles (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep (recommending withdrawal) due to the clear NBAND pass. Vaticidalprophet 13:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- passes WP:BAND. They have won Spellemannprisen twice, which is a major award ceremony. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.There are at least two reliable sources. It meets WP:BAND, point 1, and WP:GNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 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. passes WP:NALBUMS as highlighted by participants in the discussion (non-admin closure) Run n Fly (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Killing Machine[edit]

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

No evidence that it meets WP:NALBUM. No news articles about it. Lesliechin1 (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lesliechin1 (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, released on metal's biggest label and reviewed in Metal.de [34] and here. This is just what I found in 5 minutes. Geschichte (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -passes WP:NALBUMS. Found reviews in multiple reliable independent publications, including AllMusic, Metal Rules, Blabbermouth.net, and others pointed out by Geschichte. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of good sources available. Article needs improvement but Afd is not a clean up service. Per WP:NALBUMS.BabbaQ (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good sources are available and it was released on metal.de. It should not get deleted Mommmyy (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. No indication of any out-of-universe reliable sourcing that backs up any content to be merged, so closing as straight redirect. History remains though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

V-Battalion[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage outside of passing mentions in garbage listicles. TTN (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep if sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations unless sources can be found. If they are ping me so I can review them. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the "V" section of List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and per @BOZ:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. The Slings & Arrows Comic Guide does have an entry for the epynomous Citizen V and the V-Battalion comics miniseries, though I cannot see in how much detail it talks about the V-Battalion. I would be happy to change my vote to keep in case more sources were found. Daranios (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:DON'T PRESERVE. "material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published should be completely removed". Should an article for the series Citizen V and the V-Battalion be created, then a redirect there might be suitable. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Killer Moff: But it is not the case here that no reliable sources supporting this topic have been published: As the V-Battalion is a fictional entity, the comics themselves are most reliable with regard to it. As primary sources they cannot generate notability, and cannot support a separate article by themselves. But their existence means WP:DON'T PRESERVE is not applicable here. (And yes, "Primary sources ... can be both reliable and useful in certain situations".) Daranios (talk) 18:47, 27 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?} 06:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations#V - Non-notable fictional group, with very little coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 15:15, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Estonian Architects[edit]

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

Concerns had been previously raised through a tag that notability of said subject is unclear as per WP:SIGCOV. Relies on primary sources as of now. No multiple secondary sources to make a pass of WP:SIGCOV. The Estonian version of said article isn't much of a help in verifying notability either. nearlyevil 665 06:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nearlyevil665: rather speedy keep. Massive inbounding links, massive mentionings in web. WP:SIGCOV per [35], [36] (whole book dedicated to this organization), [37], [38] --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Organisations of this type are usually notable, and there are probably good enough coverage in Estonian sources. Geschichte (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There are very good, independent, non-primary sources for the association. Sirp has a very detailed history of the association. Eesti Rahvusringhääling has a feature on Andro Mänd elected as the president of the organization. The Museum of Estonian Architecture profiles the earliest members of the Union of Estonian Architects. There was a book edited by Krista Karu (EAL 1921-1996, published by Solnessi Arhitektuurikirjastus. ISBN: 9985902416) detailing the history of the organization published in 1999. There are countless articles (easily found) about the association giving awards. Articles about the anniversary of the founding here, listings for projects and exhibits and competitions and awards here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. There seems to be either some sort of bias or lackadaisical approach to some of these nominations. WP:BEFORE would have been useful. ExRat (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elohor Aiboni[edit]

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

Non-notable. Of the three sources, one only mentions her once as an attendee. The other two mainly report on her appointment, which is not significant coverage. And the main claim to fame seems to be that she is the first female to hold the position of CEO at Shell Nigeria, which in itself is not an inherently notable role. Fails WP:BIO / WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete Considering that it is rare for women to occupy prominent positions in Nigeria (see Women in Nigeria), being appointed to head the company is important and has been covered by multiple sources. An aide of the President is reported to have confirmed it. I think WP:CONTEXTUALISATION is important for the keep. Vikram Vincent 08:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, every one of the couple of hundred male midwives in the UK deserve an article, given that they represent a fraction of a per cent of the total midwifery workforce. I think not. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the UK Prime Minister acknowledges their appointment to head the mid-husband company ;-) Vikram Vincent 08:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated my !vote to delete after looking at the new sources presented by Bennyontheloose though my logic of context still stands. VV 21:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable sources from Nigeria have been added that document her winning the SheCanTech 2019 Woman of the Year award (SheCan holds second conference, celebrates Nigeria’s ‘First Women’ (The Guardian Nigeria, 2019)), and that she was also the first female Asset Operations Manager at the Bonga DeepWater Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) facility operated by Shell Nigeria, and her educational background (‘We believe every woman can do more when she recognises her innate potentials, capabilities’ (The Guardian Nigeria, 2019)). Beccaynr (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The level of psotion she holds does not grant automatic notability, and the coverage of her holding the position is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article has been published here in the last few days. There's also this and this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I’m not sure how this has eluded me for thus long, but yes per rationale by @DoubleGrazing, WP:GNG is definitely not met. Celestina007 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 19:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No attempt has been made to analyze BennyOnTheLoose's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, looking at the coverage presented by BennyOnTheLoose and others it seems to all be from the singular event of her being appointed to her position as Chief Executive of Shell Nigeria, with the exception of an interview and a passing mention in The Guardian Nigeria. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Saul[edit]

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

Non-notable or not-yet-notable journalist. After discussions with the page’s creator, who has done extensive research, we were unable to identify significant coverage in secondary RS beyond a single source (Yahoo). This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON; for now the entry relies almost entirely on primary sources and does not meet wiki notability threshold. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The discussion of sources can be found at Talk:Isaac Saul. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough coverage actually about Saul to justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnpacklambert: since I'm still not a very experienced editor, and this was my first major article, do you mind explaining why this is? I thought that in particular three of the sources that I included justified this for publication:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/voter-fraud-debunking-journalist-isaac-saul-talks-about-his-viral-election-thread-and-why-the-conspiracy-theories-put-poll-workers-in-danger/ar-BB1bewmv
https://www.yahoo.com/news/16-people-who-shaped-the-2016-election-isaac-saul-175336283.html
https://www.forbes.com/next1000/

And then, there are the sources for his career in Ultimate on top of that. Do you mind explaining why you don't think it's ready? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Establishing notability for journalists is fundamentally difficult because news organizations don't want them to be the story. It looks like we have two qualifying sources ([39] (this WP:INTERVIEW has a substantial introduction), [40]). ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically the notability requirement is for secondary sources tho no? (I’m speaking just of what I understand consensus to be—and actually that’s what that essay says—but I guess I’d have to think over what I think the ideal policy would be on primary sources of this type.) Innisfree987 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Innisfree987, Per WP:INTERVIEW: commentary added to interviews by a publication can sometimes count as secondary-source material ~Kvng (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - - My apologies, I thought you meant the interview itself was a substantial introduction (to Saul). I take it you were talking about what prefaces it. Agree for sure about regarding that as secondary but have to disagree that it’s substantial—it’s just a few sentences. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence that he's notable (yet, perhaps?) The Yahoo piece is pretty minor and afaict, has no byline and the interview isn't enough to satisfy independence of the source, nor coverage of him. TAXIDICAE💰 18:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did want to add that I found a new source covering the election fraud Twitter thread that does not include an interview: https://www.freepressjournal.in/world/us-elections-2020-journalists-mega-thread-debunking-trump-campaigns-fraud-claim-is-viral-read-here. Also, here's another interview that I found (I know that these aren't considered high-quality sources on their own, but there are a lot of him, and every one of them includes a blurb before the interview itself): https://braverangels.org/tangle-reimagining-political-news-isaac-saul-with-ciaran-oconnortangle-reimagining-political-news-isaac-saul-with-ciaran-oconnor/. Does this help at all? Also, isn't the Forbes source stronger than the Yahoo one anyway? Thank you! Kokopelli7309 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough secondary coverage independent from him either in this AfD or in the article to sustain an article on WP:GNG grounds, for instance the sources include his writings for Huffpost, personal interviews, and a Forbes piece (which doesn't contribute to notability due to the consensus on Forbes and self-publication.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looks borderline after 2 relists, hoping for more people to take a look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kokopelli7309, I see no one has replied about those additional sources, so my two cents: despite the header, the Free Press source is really about Trump and only has a passing mention of Saul. Prose before interviews can be helpful as Kvng was saying, but for AfD purposes we’re looking for material that’s gone through an editorial process, fact-checking, etc. and to me it’s not clear the podcast blurbs fit the bill. So for me these don’t change much, as far as giving us more to go on that’s not Saul’s own writing/commentary, but I appreciate your looking for more sources! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:05, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi Institute for Education and Technology[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL being a for-profit organization, in which case the rule says "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." The WP:BEFORE gave us some passing mentions but nothing that makes it pass WP:NCORP Chirota (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepdent sources. It is time we purged Wikipedia of such articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 12 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)} 03:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom.--Ankit (Talk with me) 21:28, 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 redirect to Objet d'art#Objet de vertu. ✗plicit 05:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vertu (collections)[edit]

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

PROD removed with no helpful rationale. WP:DICTDEF/WP:SUBSTUB. No indication the term has notability. The term is not mentioned at Emma, Lady Hamilton so redirecting is not a simple solution, merger is unlikely to make sense given this is just a term one person called her. BEFORE fails to find evidence of any significant usage of this term in English in other contexts anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there doesn't appear to be significant coverage of this term, some weak references [41][42], seems to be a shortened form of Objet_d'art#Objet_de_vertu. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Topic is already covered at Objet_d'art#Objet_de_vertu so anything else could be merged but this this isn't a search term with the parenthetical. Reywas92^Talk 22:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Objet_d'art#Objet_de_vertu. The coverage in the target is better than this article, which merely deals with an example of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Peterkingiron, As a nominator, I support a redirect, it makes sense. Thanks for finding a plausible target (also to User:Reywas92). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legarda Road[edit]

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

Unnotable national tertiary road (fails WP:GEOROAD). Stubbish and unsourced, unlike Balete Drive, a fellow national tertiary road which has gained significant coverage. As there are no other articles to redirect/merge to, deletion is the preferred approach. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- claims to be a "major road", yet it is only a tenth of a mile long and there are no sources to prove otherwise.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:52, 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. ✗plicit 05:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kisad Road[edit]

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

Unnotable road (fails WP:GEOROAD). The only source used, [43], comes from Wikimapia, which is a wiki (and wikis cannot be considered as reliable sources). The article also has a WP:DIRECTORY-like entry of landmarks. As there are no other articles to redirect/merge to, deletion is the preferred approach. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, no evidence of notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshower (commercial product)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sunshower (commercial product)

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

Unsourced, not notable, orphaned 162 etc. (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. jp×g 04:11, 23 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, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can understand why this article was originally carved out from the Sunshower article in 2006, so that the meteorological topic was not obscured by product lists, however it is effectively providing a listing for a couple of products without evidence that they meet current notability standards. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 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) 18:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filmkar[edit]

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

Does not look to be notable, I did not find any reliable sources, and there are none in the article. EpicPupper 01:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 01:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 01:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was unable to find any reliable sources mentioning this company, save for a passing mention in this article. This is not significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. I understand that Filmkar has produced the film Deedar (1951 film), and although that film does appear to have some coverage, it doesn't mean that Filmkar is inherently notable, per WP:INHERITORG. Furthermore, the IMDb page linked in the article wouldn't count as a reliable source as it's user generated content, per WP:UGC. HoneycrispApples (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Financial Group Limited[edit]

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

Corporation does not meet WP:NCORP- the individual brands may be notable, but this is not inherited to the holding corporation. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, while the individual companies are notable the parent company has not received the coverage necessary to pass GNG or NCORP. Since multiple of its holdings are notable, there is no good redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criterion on it's own merit. Kaspadoo (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP --Devoke water 18:50, 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. ✗plicit 00:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ibraah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Possible covert UPE on a Borderline G4 eligible article where the subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. The only dubious change from the previous deleted one and this, is that the artist has been signed to a non notable record label just established in 2020. A WP:BEFORE on subject of our discussion, which you could perform as well just shows how blatantly non notable he is. Other hits are in press releases as well as mere announcements. This is still a case of WP:TOOSOON as it was previously. Celestina007 (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Konde Music Worldwide is not an unknown record label and Ibraah is not blatantly non notable. Konde Music Worldwide is a big Record label in the East African region (and that SHOULD matter) and Ibraah is too. The region should not be underlooked like that. I'm not convinced it's too soon either as the artist has 1 million followers on Instagram and a whooping 17 million views on YouTube.PushaWasha (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — You are the creator of the article so please don’t sound as though you are an objective editor. Please prove it via reliable sources how the subject of your article satisfies WP:GNG. Bring to this AFD any reliable source to substantiate your claim that they are notable. Furthermore please cease and desist from UPE and sockpuppetry, I’ve left a message on your tp, upon closer examination it appears GeneralizationsAreBad already warned you about UPE and sockpuppetry. Celestina007 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ok then. you can delete it if you want. I don't really care no mo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PushaWasha (talk • contribs) 16:53, 15 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, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:NMUSICBIO, perhaps indeed WP:TOOSOON CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: can't find any sources, but it's plausible that some could exist and I'm not an expert in Tanzanian sources. However, given the context of the creation and the UPE/sockpuppetry, and the fact that there's no concrete evidence of GNG being met, I'm inclined towards deletion. — Bilorv (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Ibraah Biography, Age, Education, Album, Songs, Girlfriend, Net Worth" and "Ibraah Biography, Age, Education, Album, Songs, Girlfriend, Net Worth" (yes, two refs with that same title) are not usable sources. The majority of these are download pages for the album. The Cyclone Times article is a passing mention of him quoted in an Instagram post. The only thing that seems like it even comes close to WP:SIGCOV is this one, but it seems fairly questionable in terms of being an independent RS. jp×g 03:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per CommanderWaterford. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:33, 14 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. Due to lack of further participation. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 Quarks Daily[edit]

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

This article uses peacock terms and puffery, and is supported with too many unreliable sources. It also contains text written in a promotional tone. Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 14:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 14:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:Deletion is not cleanup, most of the nominator's arguments are irrelevant. For coverage to establishing notability via GNG or WP:NMEDIA, there's this piece from The Wire, but from a very quick Google search I don't see anything else yet (there's a lot of stuff about some competition they run to sort out, so it's a little tricky). My guess is that it's probably notable, but I won't !vote one way or the other until there's a more thorough search. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Sdkb. If there are terms that are puffery, it is a simple matter to just remove them. Why throw away an article with many internal Wikipedia links when it could rather easily be cleaned up. Most of the praise was in the section Reception, but almost all of that section has now been removed. Moreover, the so-called Peacockery was simply quotes by well-known people who like 3 Quarks, and as far as I know, quotes are OK. There are a lot of sources. Not all of them are unreliable. Would we delete an article because some of it sources are unreliable. Just delete statements that depend on these sources. I could not find any assertions in the page that totally depended on unreliable sources.--Toploftical (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few dead links which have now been fixed.--Toploftical (talk) 19:05, 22 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, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alex Day discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Split Infinities[edit]

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

Both references were written years before this album even existed and don't mention it at all. This album fails WP:GNG. Nexus000 (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nexus000 (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Nexus000 (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nexus000 (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alex Day discography. 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. The only Google hits are from retailers such as Amazon. --Ashley yoursmile! 06:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Day discography. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS guidelines. Lesliechin1 (talk) 18:53, 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 merge to Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a consensus, at least, that there should not be a separate article on this subject. However, it clearly meets the standards of noteworthiness for mention in an appropriately related article, and fortunately a participant in this discussion has provided that target. If substantial additional material on the subject is found and added to this target article in the future, it may then be proposed for unmerging back to a separate article. BD2412 T 03:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Lake Resort[edit]

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

Finally doing a bit better on these Lake County places. Not too surprisingly, this was another fairly short-lived resort, started in "the 1930s" according to this page, which in turn seems to be citing Hoberg, Donna. Resorts of Lake County. Arcadia Publishing.. I've come across several YT videos made from home movies taken at the resort. What the topos show is a dense grid of buildings (presumably cabins) from the 1940s up into the 1960s, at which point they thin out, There's nothing there at all now; the resort seems to have closed sometime in the 1960s-'70s. At any rate, not a settlement, and not a notable resort. Mangoe (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice. I had to remove about 150 of these kinds of places from the United Arab Emirates AfD by weary AfD a couple years back. Archaic gazetteer reference ≠ settlement. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting little, but the Arcadia book (of which you have found a book review) tells us a fair bit about this place, including who founded it and the fact that it used to be named Camp Calso. That name took me to History and prehistory of Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest, Lake County, California, which seems to at least mention Jim McCauley and the Camp Calso Company. Similarly, ISBN 9781555676285 came up in a search for Camp Calso and appears to have a "Forest Lake Resort" section heading in its history section. More research needed, but I think that this might be expandable. But definitely "was a resort" instead of "is an unincorporated community". Uncle G (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was. Uncle G (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered in some depth in two books. But consider renaming to "Forest Lake Resort". Aymatth2 (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This quaint family history is all very nice, but it fails WP:GEOLAND. It's not a natural feature, it's not a populated place, it's not notable historically. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been a populated place. Notability does not fade away when the people leave. And the coverage by at least 2 books is enough for GNG. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GEOLAND is the test, not WP:GNG. And where, please, in the guidelines do you find the words "Notability does not fade away when the people leave"??? As a settlement, unless it's an archaeological find of notability, notability most certainly does fade away when the people do. A settlement without people isn't, erm, a settlement. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:GNG trumps project-specific criteria such as WP:GEOLAND or WP:FOOTY. Ghost towns are notable if they have been discussed in some depth by reliable independent sources. That is, if they have been noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - But it's not even a ghost town - as per Mangoe "not a settlement, and not a notable resort" - and lacking in-depth discussion by reliable independent sources - if you're going to cite a mention in the "History and prehistory of Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest, Lake County, California", you're really scraping at the barrel. At best, this former resort deserves a passing mention in the Boggs Mountain article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The former resort has multi-page coverage in Dillon and in Hoberg. That makes it notable. It was popular and would also have been discussed in contemporary magazines and tourist guides. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no way of validating the 'multi-page coverage' claim, because the books aren't searchable unless you have University access. It's perhaps worth noting that the 'Friends of Boggs Mountain' website devotes but a single line to this notable settlement: "McCauley established a resort near the head of Kelsey Creek renaming it Camp Calso. Jim McCauley died in 1941 and his heirs sold the timber rights to Setzer Forest Products." Here. As I say, at best - failing WP:GEOLAND - it deserves to be a footnote in the Boggs Mountain article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't assume bad faith. You can see some of the coverage in snippets: Dillon and Hoberg. With a bit of ingenuity with search terms you can see more. It is indeed multi-page coverage in both books. The resort was not on Boggs Mountain, but was one of a string of resorts along Kelsey Creek below the mountain. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest. Both the book sources above are published by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection who manage the forest, and as such don't quite fulfill the requirement of "multiple, independent sources". Both sources mention the resort only in the context of the history of the current state forest, and there's no reason why we shouldn't do likewise. I don't see any in-depth coverage elsewhere, a newspaper search (including for its pre-1937 name Camp Calso) revealed only adverts and passing mentions. ----Pontificalibus 05:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pontificalibus: The main source, Hoberg, was published by Arcadia Publishing, not the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and does not mention the state forest. The resort was not on Boggs Mountain and was never part of the state forest. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am amazed discussion is ongoing, when this is such a clear-cut issue. This is not a settlement today. It never HAS been a settlement. It was, briefly, a failed resort. It does not pass WP:GEOLAND. It is not notable for any reason whatsoever. It has, arguably, never been notable in history. It is briefly mentioned in two (~~unverifiable~~) books, so yay for that. But that doesn't make it notable. And it doesn't make it a THING in today's context. It is not historical, archaeological or even anthropological. It's.not.a.thing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The books are verifiable. You just have to click on the links: Dillon and Hoberg. All that WP:GNG requires is that the topic has been covered in some depth by reliable independent sources. That is certainly true. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which just verifies that the place does NOT pass WP:GNG. Passing mentions in two books that are themselves quaint marginalia. And it STILL fails WP:GEOLAND! To reiterate: at best, this long-defunct (and only briefly funct) resort deserves a passing mention in the Boggs Mountain article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The resort was not on Boggs Mountain. Two pages of text in Dillon and five pages of text and photographs in Hoberg are much more than passing mentions. The power of WP-GNG is that it does not require that a topic be "important", whatever that means, just that it has been noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I love the use of the author's surnames to make 'em sound more authoritative - Dillon and Hoberg. Wow. 'Resorts of Lake County' doesn't sound quite as impressive does it? Some pictures in a picture book and some passing mentions in a regional guide DO NOT make the empty location of a long defunct (and only briefly viable) resort notable. There's nothing there, hasn't been for 60-odd years. What isn't getting across here? This.is.not.a.place. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Brian D. Dillon is an archaeologist and author of several books, and Donna Hoberg is a local historian. They are both reliable and independent sources, and both discuss the topic in some depth. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without prejudice to this discussion, I have moved the article to Forest Lake Resort, which seems a more appropriate title, since the article is not really about today's hamlet, known mostly for Our Lady of the Pines Catholic Church. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a clear-cut issue, but Alexandermcnabb has it wrong. It doesn't matter how "important" it is. Wikipedia:Fame and importance is a long-rejected idea. It doesn't matter whether it's "merely a resort" any more than it matters that other articles are "merely beetles". This was just more two-sentence "unincorporated community" GNIS rubbish. Now it is an article on something with an already documented history. It doesn't matter that that history ended and the place is no more. Indeed, that is why people often come to encyclopaedias to look stuff up. The claim that this is like Jabal Mubrahah (AfD discussion) is laughable, because this no longer being a two-sentence GNIS dump makes it exactly not like that article. And dismissing the sources because one hasn't read them and judging based upon a WWW site is entirely wrongheaded, and clearly Alexandermcnabb's evaluations of the sources, given that xe outright says that xe hasn't read them, is unreliable. Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandermcnabb has read both sources and still believes they don't stand up WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. This is a marginal resort of zero importance, no longevity and no current geographical standing. It also fails WP:PLACEOUTCOMES as a resort (hotel). It's no.longer.there. As a minor blip in the history of Boggs Mountain, it possibly deserves a sub-heading on that page, but no more. It won't surprise you to know that Alexandermcnabb doesn't think he has it wrong. This is a place of no lasting notability, historical significance or merit. It's a small resort that opened briefly and then closed. The Magna Carta wasn't signed there, the Rolling Stones never played there, a famous actress never died there. It is, in short, a Norwegian Blue. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not consider "importance", a vague and subjective concept, but simply requires that reliable independent sources have discussed the topic in some depth. Not entirely by coincidence, that means there must be enough material to develop a non-trivial article. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talking Turkey (comics)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Found nothing that shows significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Plus, it's defunct. --Ashley yoursmile! 05:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For now, for lack of sources to prove notoriety. I was also unable to locate anything specifically about this magazine. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Why foreign media loves anti-BJP, champagne socialists as columnists". The Print. 7 May 2020.

[2] "India's Media Is Partly to Blame for Its COVID Tragedy". Time. Retrieved 2021-05-06.

[3] Singh, Prabhjit. "Farmers at Kundli upset over media misrepresentation, accusations; confront "godi media"". The Caravan. Retrieved 2021-05-06.

[4] "Farmers' Protest: A Roadmap for the Opposition". Economic and Political Weekly: 7–8. 2015-06-05.

[5] Chan-Ki Kim; Vijay K. Sood; Gil-Soo Jang; Seong-Joo Lim; Seok-Jin Lee (2009). HVDC Transmission: Power Conversion Applications in Power Systems. Wiley. pp. 398–399. ISBN 9780470822968.

[6] Abdel-Aty Edris; Chen-Ching Liu; Mircea Eremia, eds. (2016). Advanced Solutions in Power Systems: HVDC, FACTS, and Artificial Intelligence. Wiley. p. 121. ISBN 9781119035695.

[7] Catalina Spataru (2018). Transitioning Island Nations Into Sustainable Energy Hubs: Emerging Research and Opportunities. IGI Global. p. 70. ISBN 9781522560036.

[8] Abhisek Ukil; Yew Ming Yeap; Kuntal Satpathi (2020). Fault Analysis and Protection System Design for DC Grids. Springer International Publishing. p. 10. ISBN 9789811529771.

[9] Kwang Hyung Lee (30 November 2006). First Course on Fuzzy Theory and Applications. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 271.

[10] Ying Bai; Zvi S. Roth (2018). Classical and Modern Controls with Microcontrollers: Design, Implementation and Applications. Springer International Publishing. pp. 454–457. ISBN 9783030013820.

[11] Chin-Hsing Cheng; Yuan-Yih Hsu (1991). "Excitation control of a synchronous generator using a lookup table". IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems. 27 (2): 247–254. doi:10.1109/7.78299.

[12] J. Lee; K. Nam; S. Choi; S. Kwon (2007). "A Lookup Table Based Loss Minimizing Control for FCEV Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors": 175–179. doi:10.1109/VPPC.2007.4544120. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |conference= ignored (help)

[13] Frederick Chee; Tyrone Fernando (2007). Closed-Loop Control of Blood Glucose. Springer. pp. 61–62. ISBN 9783540740308.

[14] Tadanari Taniguchi; Michio Sugeno (2018). "Piecewise Multi-linear Model Based Lookup Table Controller for Nonlinear Systems with Input Constraints". Recent Developments and the New Direction in Soft-Computing Foundations and Applications. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 9783030471248.

[15] Elisabeth A. Gambone. Pattern Recognition Control Design (pdf) (Technical report). NASA.

[16] Sanjay V. Kumar; Chris H. Kim; Sachin S. Sapatnekar (2008). "Body Bias Voltage Computations for Process and Temperature Compensation" (pdf). IEEE Transactions on very large scale integration (VLSI) systems. 16 (3): 249–262.

[17] Ezio Alfieri; Alois Amstutz; Lino Guzzella (2009). "Gain-scheduled model-based feedback control of the air/fuel ratio in diesel engines". Control Engineering Practice. 17 (12): 1417–1425. doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2008.12.008.

[18] Krisztián Lamár; Péter Zalotay (2015). "Microcontroller implementation of lookup table-based control functions with special emphasis on sequential control according to IEC 61131-3". The International Journal of Electrical Engineering & Education. doi:10.1177/0020720915571492.

[19] M. Beckerleg; R. Hogg (2016). "Evolving a lookup table based motion controller for a ball-plate system with fault tolerant capabilites": 257–262. doi:10.1109/AMC.2016.7496360. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |conference= ignored (help)

[20] Istvan Kecskes (2015). "Lookup Table Based Fuzzy Controller Implementation in Low-power Microcontrollers of Hexapod Robot Szabad(ka)-II". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |conference= ignored (help)

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]