Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 06	April 08 >

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.(non-admin closure). — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 09:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Alaap (Bangladeshi Communication App)[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because the article is not written in an encyclopaedic style. Besides, I don't think that the organization or web content/application is notable or meets WP:GNG. Basically, there are many Bangladeshi communication apps or other apps. But all of them can't be a Wikipedia article due to lack of notability, significance and independence of subject. A.A Prinon 6:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC).

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. I withdraw this nomination, and no delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Apple20674 (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Blumenthal (entrepreneur and philanthropist)[edit]

I don't think that this is notable. Cannot find many sources except for maybe "https://observer.com/2012/04/cellular-communications-giant-george-blumenthal-sells-co-op-for-31-5-m/" also not sure it passes Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple20674 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on this page, would appreciate a bit of time to fix it before deletion. Hhcaas (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh ok sorry just was not sure. But why is he notable? I tried searching and could not see anything. Apple20674 (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have removed first names and Mr. and made article more neutral. Still working on citations. Blumenthal's love of privacy means that it is hard to find online sources about him, but I will work on getting them and will delete whatever I can't substantiate. He is notable because he was one of the pioneers of cellular communication and has been involved in important educational projects, including the digitization of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in partnership with Google.Hhcaas (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok then, understandable. Will delete the AFD immediately. Apple20674 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Much appreciated!Hhcaas (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Changelings[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Only (real) claim of notability is doing a soundtrack to Netherworld Haunted House, but I haven't found any independent coverage of that either. Very hard to find any independent coverage of this band. I believe very little is available. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability and contains unreferenced personal commentary ("Although their albums have been received warmly by critics, their largest audience has probably heard them unknowingly"). Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:21, 14 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 Deleted by Maile66 (non-admin closure) Therapyisgood (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Nano Society[edit]

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

Advertisement or promotional Kaseng55 (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Nano society is a nationally recognised professional organization. It is significant and devoted for development of nanotechnology research in Bangladesh. So I request Wikipedia authority for not deleting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. M.M. Rabbani (talk • contribs) 23:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC) moved to bottom as it should be. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 00:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Speedy delete: per G11 Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 00:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I added the G11 tag; it is an ad. --- Possibly (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criteria A7 and G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prospect Music Award[edit]

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

as per my previous nomination, no evidence this is a notable award, despite being given to notable people (literally anyone can do that.) There is 0 coverage of it anywhere. EGGIDICAE🥚 23:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt The creator of the article and the founder of the award seem to be the same person. If so, this is just spam. The creator was warned about COI the last time they tried this so there is a risk they might try again, hence my recommendation to salt. I see zero evidence that anybody else finds these awards notable. Do the recipients even acknowledge them? The creator has a copy of this article as their user page. I'll nominate that for speedy deletion lest that be used to recreate the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly non-notable and essentially self-promotional by the article's creator. Possibly qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatant Spam. On a side note, the creator is now blocked for spam by Kinu. Java Hurricane 07:05, 10 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. Sandstein 08:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Magic[edit]

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

Article about a short film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. The only notability claim on offer here is that it won awards at minor local film festivals that are not prominent enough to get over NFO #3 -- notability-securing awards means things like Oscars, BAFTAs, Canadian Screen Awards or Césars and/or film festivals on the Cannes-Berlin-Toronto tier of international prominence, not just every minor film festival that exists -- and for sourcing, there's one article from the university student newspaper of the filmmaker's own alma mater (hence not fully independent of the subject), and one blurb in the corporate newsletter of the filmmaker's employer (hence not fully independent of the subject), so it doesn't pass the "notable because media coverage" criterion either. I've also removed two footnotes that both failed to mention this film at all, and instead were present solely to verify a completely tangential fact about a person who had nothing whatsoever to do with this film, and thus had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with establishing this film as notable. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the film from having to be referenced a flaming hell of a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG and NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SMV High School, Thiruvananthapuram[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NSCHOOL. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First off, the Hindu article is both a reliable source and indicative of significant coverage. Secondly, the school is about 175 years old, pre-dating the 1857 reorganization of British Raj, making it one of the oldest schools in India. It easily passes my standards for schools. Finally, even a brief review of book sources shows it in government reports going back 60 years and is even mentioned in a reputable tour guide! Bearian (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per the findings by Bearian and this source[1] from the Hindu. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bebopjohnson (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - nomination was by a sock in evasion of a block, bad faith nomination Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Opinions are in equipoise (though the "procedural keep" vote is given no weight as to the merits of the article); there is no consensus, and no reason to expect that another relisting would yield such a result. BD2412 T 03:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Aloysius Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No Reliable Sources found with a WP:BEFORE. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search brought up only primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on traditional measures, this would fail. However, according to User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD my longstanding standards, this is a notable school due to its age (over 100 years), size (4,000 students), and notable alumni. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - bad faith nomination; created by a sock in evasion of their block Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since another editor has suggested delete, this isn't a case of WP:CSK#4. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bold claims like "one of the oldest" need to be well sourced. This article is just not well sourced. Wikipedia has perpetrated too many hoaxes with such poor sourcing, such as the false claim about who invented hand sanitizer. We need to hold articles that make such claims to strong notability standards so we stop perpetuating hoaxes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note I added some sources, while I wouldn't assert that these are sufficient for a WP:NSCHOOL pass, I think it likely that such sources exist.----Pontificalibus 15:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the additional sources added to the article so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 03:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina satana musician[edit]

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

I can't find evidence that she's independently notable from the band. Originally proded by CommanderWaterford with the following rationale: "No signs of sufficient notability per WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC nor WP:GNG". Deproded by article creator. Novem Linguae also commented, "I do agree that this article should be deleted". (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. (t · Special:Contributions/Buidhe c) buidhe 23:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is GArth Chesney, the creator of the Sabrina Satana page: Even if she were not independently noteworthy from the band, she would be just as suited to have her own page as Axl Rose is, for he is not noteworthy apart from the band, and he has his own page. However, having those references I cited, which include the IMDB page and an interview on national t.v. (Fox News) about the famous incident in California, I think Van Tassell easily rises to the level of relevance that is reason for a Wikipedia article to exist about a person. Furthermore, the Jungle Key site I cited seems to be the only one that connects the two individuals as being one in the same, which brings me to another reason to have a Wikipedia page for her: Hardly any of her acting fans or people reading the news story about the fecal terror incident are aware that she is Sabrina Satana, and hardly any EHC fans are aware of her Heidi Van Tassell persona (though many are aware of both personas, not knowing they are one and the same person). So, such a clarification is absolutely relevant to the historical record, being that both personas are public figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garthchesney (talk • contribs)
Delete - does not appear to be notable independent of being a back-up singer/dancer for The Electric Hellfire Club, no solo work credits to be found... fails WP:BANDMEMBER, WP:NACTOR, WP:BLP1E (or WP:VICTIM, RE: the fecal event), and with the unique article title, this is not even a probable enough search term for a redirect to the band... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further - even the Fox News article cited makes no mention of her being notable in any way... it just says "California woman" and her name, no mention of the band, no acting career, no background, just a random woman that was assaulted... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note - There was once an article called simply Sabrina Satana which was redirected to Electric Hellfire Club way back in 2010 (^history). Before that it was just a paragraph announcing her existence. The current article, in addition to being incorrectly titled, is basically the same old paragraph with a new sentence on her unfortunate incident in 2019. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Her true name has already been redirected to Electric Hellfire Club (see comment above) and nobody will search for this contorted version. She is not notable outside of the band, and the 2019 incident is unfortunate but not notable per WP:BLP1E or WP:VICTIM. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP, it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. Beccaynr (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom (thanks, almost forgot it) - no signs of sufficient notability per WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC nor WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." No, that's what police reports and voluntary interviews on national t.v. do. By producing an article that cites information that a person has broadcast as loudly as she could, Wikipedia is not "prolonging the victimization" or any of that other nonsense mentioned. These aren't "claims about peoples' lives"; rather, these are facts, documented on everything from the heavy metal encyclopedia (Metal Archives) to police reports to national news reports by reputable media and press outlets that the victim voluntarily spoke to, while advertising her name far and wide. To this day, she continues to share articles about it on her facebook page. on which, again, she goes by her real name, which is the same name she uses as a screenwriter, actress, and victim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Garthchesney (talk • contribs) 02:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it looks like she is sensationalizing her own victimhood and trying to turn sympathy for her unfortunate incident into promotion for a career that is largely unknown otherwise. When Wikipedia tries to avoid sensationalism, it makes no difference if someone is sensationalizing themselves. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Zero results in Google News. Two of the three sources on the page don't mention her. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all notability guidelines, also not a plausible search term so no appoint in even redirecting Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kasia Boddy[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:PROF. SL93 (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep she has multiple reviews of her books (Boxing, Geranium) in academic journals, that is sufficient for both WP:NAUTHOR (and also WP:NPROF). --hroest 03:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per hroest and WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added to the article many reviews of her books in a mix of academic journals and major newspapers, which give her an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Academy (Los Angeles)[edit]

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

This article concerns a defunct charter school in Los Angeles, California. According to the California Department of Education, the school operated only from 2004 to 2006. All of the external links in the article are now dead and the article has not cited any sources for several years.

BEFORE searches for this school do not return any coverage at all that can definitively be traced to the school. There are a lot of "Renaissance" named schools in the Los Angeles area, but none of the coverage I have found seems to relate to this school. Therefore, I do not believe it meets the general notaiblity guidelines or any other subject-specific guidelines for notability. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears non-notable, and no reliable references seem to exist. Bebopjohnson (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* For the record, I lived in the area for a long time, apparently right down the road, when this school was active, and don't recall it at all. Bebopjohnson (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was expecting to find more coverage, but none seems to exist. The lack of coverage for this secondary school is a little unusual. I'm open to the idea that the coverage exists because it can be difficult for search engines to distinguish this school from schools with similar names. However, this is not realistic because charter schools tend to have less coverage. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with the only delete vote from a confirmed blocked sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Schellhorn[edit]

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

Unsure what to make of this article, but I don't think it meet notability requirements or passes WP:MUSICBIO. Another user had prodded it in the past, but that prod was ~~removed~~ refunded. Out of the 29 sources so far, 5 of them are the subject's own website (equaling approx. 17% of sources on the page - if I can do math correctly). The AllMusic ref does not count toward notability (per WP:ALLMUSIC at WP:RSPSOURCES, which states "Listings without accompanying prose do not count toward notability.") The "Notable Alumni" failed verification as a redirect, even at the Wayback Machine. The rest of the sources are namechecks with a few exceptions: the bio at his recording studio website (thus not independent, as they are marketing him); an op-ed he wrote (again, not independent); and a coat of arms he obtained (no biographical info or assessment involved). The Girton College newsletter does not count toward notability, as it fails point 1 on WP:MUSICBIO, which states "Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases" are not acceptable. The source I can see that is an independent RS is the one in the Irish Times here. Overall, I believe this is a lot of listings amalgamated to make for a nice CV. Kbabej (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Mcguy15 (talk)

Keep per finding of sources by Bebopjohnson, previous vote withdrawn.

*Delete per nom not enough news coverage. Citterz (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Although article needs some cleanup, the subject seems notable to me. Certainly just as notable as many of the thousands of musicians listed on Wikipedia. Bebopjohnson (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bebopjohnson: Welcome to WP. Interesting to note the same day you've signed up you are vigorously and rapidly !voting at AfD. Can you point to a policy/coverage that meets GNG/MUSICBIO notability requirements for this subject? I would also point you to WP:OTHERSTUFF, which states "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not", and is an argument to specifically avoid in AfD discussions. --Kbabej (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bebopjohnson: I would also encourage you to read WP:SKCRIT, in which you will see the requirements for "Speedy keep", which I would argue is used incorrectly here. --Kbabej (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej: Thanks, I agree. Speedy Keep should in fact have been 'Keep'. As for notability, he clearly meets the following criteria as he has two albums released by Naxos (the largest Classical Music Label in the world): "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." That seems pretty black and white to me. Bebopjohnson (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bebopjohnson: You're quoting WP:MUSICBIO, which states "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable..." (emphasis mine) if they meet one of those criteria. It also states "...meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." On MUSICBIO, it links to WP:NBIO, which the subject does not pass. --Kbabej (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej: On that basis (WP:NBIO) you have made my point for me! As per WP:NBIO "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." A simple Google Search shows this to be the case. I realize that deletion probably feels easier than improving the page, but it seems like a better approach would be to actually improve the sourcing on the page. Bebopjohnson (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bebopjohnson: Can you provide those RS that are independent of the subject and independent of each other? In the nomination above, one is listed from the Irish Times. I didn’t see more. —Kbabej (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej: Sure thing! Just a quick handful that I found after a few minutes of searching. 60,000 results to go, so surely more to find!

* https://arcana.fm/2020/11/17/matthew-schellhorn-howells/

* https://sound-scotland.co.uk/news/review-lunchbreak-concert-with-matthew-schelllhorn

* https://www.classical-music.com/reviews/miscellaneous/messiaen-73/

* https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/musical-son-doncaster-returns-his-roots-charity-piano-concert-262678

* http://www.mvdaily.com/articles/2008/05/matthew-schellhorn1.htm

* http://www.musicweb-international.com/SandH/2008/Jul-Dec08/schellhorn1311.htm

* https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news/27766

* http://www.compositiontoday.com/interviews/matthew_schellhorn.asp

Bebopjohnson (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bebopjohnson: I would argue that those definitely meet WP:THREE (essay, not policy), and in AGF I will withdraw my nomination based on the further refs presented. Thank you for diving into the ether to get those sources. --Kbabej (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bebopjohnson: Per WP:CLOSEAFD, looks like since the first two editors' !votes were for deletion, I cannot close this discussion early. I understand (and could be mistaken) it needs to run the 168 hrs, or an admin must close it if closing early? --Kbabej (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej: Thank you for the very civil dialogue and for giving me a chance to go root around for these. For good measure and for posterity, I have found a few more in my searching:

* http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2015/09/music-for-psp-pilgrimage-interview-with.html#.YG-HUrRKiHF

* https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/articles/3623--awards-recordings-of-the-year-2020-our-top-100

* https://pianodao.com/2020/12/24/herbert-howells-piano-music/

* http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2020/Aug/Howells-piano-v1-8571382.htm

* http://agoraclassica.com/reviews/absolute_magazine/-1/6323/herbert-howellshowells-piano-music-%E2%80%93-vol-1-matthew-schellhorn-pf

* https://www.classicalmusicdaily.com/2020/09/howells.htm

* https://operatoday.com/2016/06/london_a_90th_birthday_tribute_to_horovitz/

Thank you Kbabej!

Bebopjohnson (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcguy15: and @Citterz: Thank you for your !votes above and taking the time to review the AfD. Bebopjohnson did some digging and found some sources not in the article I really should have caught in BEFORE. I am wanting to withdraw my AfD vote, but to do so would need consensus for the article to be kept. Would you be willing to take a look and see if the sources presented are enough for the article to be kept in your view? If those articles do not amount to wanting to keep, the AfD can run its typical 168 course. I am AGF either way and hope you're both well. Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I really gotta start going past the first 2 pages in google! Thanks for finding those, Bebopjohnson. My vote is refunded. Mcguy15 (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look! I appreciate it. —Kbabej (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has radio airplay in BBC and France, hence meets WP:MUSICBIO. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Qayyum (footballer)[edit]

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

This footballer has an article because of a 3 minute cameo 4.5 years ago but I can't find any significant coverage of him. He is mentioned once in an article in the Star and a Bharian article, both of which are about the same subject. Neither article provides any depth.

Unless WP:GNG can be clearly demonstrated, the borderline passing of WP:NFOOTBALL is not enough and there is a growing consensus among the Wikipedia community that GNG takes priority in cases similar to this one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As often discussed, scraping by NFOOTBALL standards with a few minutes of professional football a few years ago isn't much good if GNG is not established. JW 1961^Talk 09:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom not enough news coverage. Citterz (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I made this? I need to check my contribution history to see why but yeah, barely passes WP:NFOOTY and fails WP:GNG. I did try to see if there are any articles but I can't find much. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was very surprised to see that you had created this as well! It is what it is, it technically meets the criteria for creation and, to be honest, it's only been the last few years or so where there has been a push to enforce GNG on borderline NSPORTS cases Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I got it! At the time, Penang was coached by Ashley Westwood, the former coach of Bengaluru in India. I think I might have checked the page, saw it was a mess so I cleaned it up and then noticed, I suspect (don't remember and too lazy to check all those player page histories) that Qayyum was the only one who did not have a page, so I checked and saw he had a game and made the article. So, mystery solved. Still delete haha. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Devoke water 07:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is absurd we make footballers notable for playing one time but insist actors need multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Masami Akita discography#As Merzbow. There is consensus that the subject is not notable, as well as a consensus to redirect to the discography article where the album is mentioned as an alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mercurated[edit]

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

No notable sources referenced, fails general and album notability guidlines. Mcguy15 (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any notability for this album and no other sources in general. lullabying (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, found a review from a forum at wordpress. It says on said review "There isn't much information available on this release". MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could I note that there are probably 25-100 articles that fail the general notability guidlines relating to Merzbow(see: Masami Akita discography)? Someone went on like a spree of creating them in the late 2000s. I would like to nominate more of them, but how would I do that? Is there a non tedious way to sort through and nominate a bunch of articles? Like this dude has about 400 studio albums Mcguy15 (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you find an album article to be clearly non-notable and would not reasonably expect anyone to object to redirecting it to the artist's discography, you can simply boldly redirect it yourself. If the (non-)notability is not as clear so that you do want to go through AfD, you can consider making bundled nominations of multiple similar articles where possible. And in general, using Twinkle makes the nominating process infinitely less tedious :) Lennart97 (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lennart97: It didn't pass my mind that I could just redirect it if it's clearly non notable. Thanks for the help! :) Mcguy15 (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Masami Akita discography#As Merzbow: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nomination. Bebopjohnson (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Masami Akita discography#As Merzbow: (not to Merzbow, where this album isn't mentioned) Per nom, no significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Masami Akita discography#As Merzbow - I have some familiarity with this musician. He has a preposterous 355 studio albums and hundreds more related items. Not all of them need to have articles and most are totally obscure outside of his cult following. For this one, redirect to the correct section of his discography, which should also be the solution for any others that the folks here would like to boldly redirect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Higuita (film)[edit]

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

~~No longer an upcoming film (was released in 2020). OnManorama is a review but for WP:NFILM#1 we'd need a second~~ and the rest is routine coverage, as was anything else I could find (e.g. [2]). No listing at Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, couldn't get anything useful out of IMDb and so on. — Bilorv (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Stricken some misleading parts, see first !vote for why.) — Bilorv (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Actually the nominator is wrong here. The movie is not released yet. See this article written on April 2020 [3] It says Higuita team had completed a 40-day schedule in Kannur and is looking forward to completing the rest of the shooting soon after the lockdown ends. The production of all Malayalam movies were completely stopped by the end of March 2020 due to Covid 19 pandemic. This movie's production is still delayed as the shooting has not yet completed due to busy schedule of actor Suraj Venjaramoodu. This source [4] shown here by the nom is actually written in 2019 and is talking about the performance of actor Suraj in different movies during that year and not about this particular movie. The movie has also recieved more than enough coverage thus passing GNG. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment, Kashmorwiki. Bad research on my part (though I swear somewhere said it released in 2020...); I'll do better next time. However, in line with this, I would now argue for a draftify (or, second option, soft delete) outcome because I don't know what sources you're seeing that aren't routine, but we might expect the content to be useful once the movie is released (if it then becomes notable). Per WP:NFF, the production has to be notable for an article to be warranted and though the condition it uses is the commencement of principal photography, given that there has been an indefinite hiatus of at least a year so far, it is in the spirit of NFF for this project to not be far enough along to have an article. Many projects have been cancelled as a result of an initial hiatus caused by the pandemic and I think it's WP:CRYSTAL to support keeping the article, as it would not be notable if no further work was ever undertaken on it and it silently fell through. — Bilorv (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. 09:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes Bilorv, Im also not sure whether this movie would release in the near future. You might wanna have a look at Aadujeevitham (film) also. This movie has also stopped production due to Covid 19 Pandemic and there are no chances this would be releasing in near future. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 13:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreleased film without a notable production. Fails WP:NFF. WP:NFILM really doesn't apply yet. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails NFF... Kolma8 (talk) 21:21, 8 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. Sandstein 08:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Hale (born 1998)[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE failed to turn up anything not in the article. We have local sources, an interview (not independent), an article by a mental health service he used (not independent). In the category of possibly contributing to notability, we have an appearance in a documentary (not the main/only focus of it, it looks like), and possibly a LadBible article that Hale is the focus of. Overall, WP:GNG is not met. Was approved by a sock at AFC - not sure if their behaviour at AFC was ever in question, but I wouldn't expect a normal AFC reviewer to accept this. (If the close is "delete", remove the listing from William Hale.) — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 21:13, 7 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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reynell Cotton[edit]

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

Non notable cricket person - doesn't appear to be any evidence he was notable for playing the game - CricketArchive has a single non-first-class match in 1773. Fails WP:NCRIC.

His notability has to rest, then, on WP:COMPOSER and the one song that he wrote some lyrics for (although probably not all of them). This appears in Nyren's book - see wikisource, but there is no other mention of Cotton by name other than as the writer. The Ashley Mote reference can be found at Google Books. It's mentioned in various other places, but doesn't appear to be particularly noteworthy - and this, I think, is where Cotton's notability falls.

An alternative might be to redirect to Hambledon Club, but that seems sketchy at best. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The principal source for his cricketing exploits is not a reliable source (self-published by a now blocked editor; the writing style of this article seems rather familiar – "not known", "believed", etc.) – I have removed it and the pure speculation it supported. I have added this source which states him as the founder of Hyde Abbey School and found multiple mentions of "Reynell Cotton's School". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In marginal cases like this, my inclination is always to be inclusive. I think there's enough to make him notable, including founding a school that had some distinguished alumni. And the article currently has five citations, so he comfortably passes GNG (is it? - I'm not very fluent in Wikipedian). JH (talk page) 07:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The club song he wrote does seem to get some coverage, and then there's the coverage of the founding of the school Wjemather mentions above. There's probably just enough there and could be more in a more thorough offline search to pass GNG. Not sure the suggested redirect is suitable really with his as notable for his school related actions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability as an educator is definite, though I agree with BST about the cricket aspect. The article should be revised to emphasise Cotton's educational career and perhaps someone from the schools project will be best qualified to do that. I've alerted WP:SCHOOLS to this discussion. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm convinced he is certainly more notable from an educational standpoint. StickyWicket (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although not because he passes WP:NCRIC- he doesn't appear to. But there with multiple references from a range of sources his WP:GNG case is already close to or over the line, and given his date of birth, most sources are likely to reside offline, so the standard WP:BEFORE checks are of limited use. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be interested to see what, if anything, about Mr Cotton is in The Hambledon Cricket Chronicle 1772-1796: Including The Reproduction Of The Minute And Account Books Of The Club a book from 1923 which covers the period when he was president of Hambledon, but which doesn't appear to be digitised anywhere online. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on a WP:BEFORE search this is at worst a merge and redirect, but while I see a lot of mentions I haven't seen anything which clearly passes the WP:GNG line to put me in the keep camp (not convinced the Horsham Society Newsletter is reliable for notability reasons, and can't access British Newspaper Archives.) SportingFlyer T·C 21:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting one. As far as I can see, he fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NCRIC and, I think, fails point 3, the relevant one, of WP:CREATIVE. But he existed and did some things. I'm not adverse to the keep - and thanks, btw, to people who have added sources; I was looking just at the song so missed those. But what notability guideline are we hitting here? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:35, 10 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. Sandstein 18:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parayam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Was tagged for being unsourced for 11 years now. Kolma8 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tonti diagram[edit]

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

Written by Enzo Tonti to promote ideas by Enzo Tonti, it's sourced to a book by Enzo Tonti and a YouTube video by Enzo Tonti (other than references for the background). No secondary sources, no indication of notability. I think that's the most bizarre article I have seen on Wikipedia. It also holds the record for maintenance templates: WP:COI, copyvio, too technical, written like an essay, unencyclopaedic, orphan, unsourced. I mean, just look at it. Tercer (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "I mean, just look at it" is apt. It's like a garbled rediscovery of the idea of intensive and extensive variables (commonplace in thermodynamics), blended with ... I'm not sure what, exactly. Finite element analysis? Lots of concepts thrown together and associated arbitrarily. XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete per nom. If we're keeping any of this, it's the maintenance templates, because that is absolutely golden. Also, yeah: Tonti diagram, written by user ProfEnzoTonti (whose profile page literally just says "Enzo Tonti"), promoting a diagram by Enzo Tonti, sourced to a book by Enzo Tonti and a website made by Enzo Tonti, with external links being a YouTube video by Enzo Tonti and the ResearchGate page for Enzo Tonti. Enzo Tonti, by the way, had a page on Italian Wikipedia that was deleted for being self-promotion. You can't make this up. You just can't. This tall Tonti tale has to be archived somewhere. BJAODN, perhaps? AdoTang (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for some combination of WP:FRINGE and WP:BOLLOCKS. PianoDan (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might help to know that although Enzo Tonti named these after xyrself in the 1970s, and Georges A. Deschamps called them Deschamps diagrams in the 1980s, Alain Bossavit called them Maxwell's House more recently than either. ISBN 9783030037185 page 126 (Cortez Garcia et al.) tells us that they are visualizations of the de Rham complex.
Also, none of those are speedy deletion rationales.
Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I add that whilst there are a fair few citations of Bossavit for what Tonti diagrams or Maxwell's House are, meaning that the idea has escaped its creators, I haven't found any of the people doing so doing more than pointing to Bossavit or Tonti for an actual explanation. They don't explain themselves. Even Cortez Garcia et al. give the whole thing just 1 short paragraph. I haven't been able to find and read Bossavit directly. Uncle G (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Books has several hits using the term in fairly recent books. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing I can find in a Google Books search is in-depth coverage, or even very clear about what the point of the things are. And who exactly is going to rewrite this disaster area of an article from scratch? XOR'easter (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, the only thing that I can verifiably say in article space from what I've found so far is, somewhat ironically, the two sentences that I wrote in this discussion. ☺ That doesn't really make for an article or even a good stub. Most of the uses seem to be (paraphrasing) "A cute way of visualizing things is in Fig 1. (BOS 88)". Phrase matching in a search engine means nothing. It's whether the search engine turns up sources, and reading to see what they actually say, that is important. Uncle G (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google searches in English, Italian, French, and Polish restricted to before 2013 yield at most 2 pages of results. While the diagrams did seem to be used in a few very specific courses in Europe, they don't seem to be widely taught or discussed within the relevant fields. JoelleJay (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books, Google Scholar, and JSTOR are better than Google Web here. But what has come up in the results so far has not helped. And even 1 page of results would be enough if those results were actually good sources supporting in-depth material. Everyone is welcome to find something that I have missed, though. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Present coverage is not enough to qualify for GNG. Citterz (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per explanation of the nominator as to why this is not a notable subject. Wikipedia is not a platform for individuals to promote themselves of their ideas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete in full agreement with Tercer, XOR'easter and AdoTang. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dipsita Dhar[edit]

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

Not sure if being general secretary of Students Federation of India is good enough for being notable. Most of the notable references cover about Student Federation of India or Communist Party of India and not the concerned person exclusively. Also, WP:NPOL does suggest that a politician should win at least one reputed election and assume office to be considered as notable politician. Dixiku (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NPOL also states, Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. The WP:GNG guideline states, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, so a source does not need to be focused on her exclusively for it to support her notability. In addition, WP:BASIC states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and there are a lot of sources to review in this article that may support her notability when combined, especially if the coverage is WP:SUSTAINED over time. Beccaynr (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two sources which give WP:SIGCOV are one and two. While there is a bit of cleaning up that is required of the article, it passes WP:BASIC even in the current form. VV 15:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources in article meet BASIC/GNG. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VV Furius (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources and have been revising the article, and at minimum, there is sustained WP:BASIC coverage over time supporting her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:BASIC is fulfilled. the article has been cleaned up and WP:SUSTAINED coverage is clearly visible. VV 05:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are substantial media reports about the subject in both visual and print media. It includes English and multiple other Indian Languages (Bengali, Hindi, Malayalam). Also, the subject clearly passes WP:BASIC. (Ashique2020 (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

**Note: Ashique is the creator of the page. VV 06:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about an Indian women student leader. There are lot many independent media reports about her in national media, indicating her notability (Sanwar nath (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)).[reply]
- Sanwar nath is the creator of the article (struck out erroneous message above). VV 07:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:As per the improvements made by Beccaynr and the fact that she has recieved high amount of press coverage thus passing NPOL. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Leony[edit]

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

Long-time unsourced BLP. I can't find any significant coverage or other indication of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree completely with nom. Sigcov would be a stretch considering there is no coverage at all. PK650 (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. God loves a trier. Mccapra (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Megtetg34 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devoke water 07:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable DJ and music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2013. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HD 159243 b[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. The only paper about this object is the discovery paper, along with two others. No popular coverage. Lithopsian (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also did a search for this exoplanet, and the only non-trivial mention I could find was in the discovery paper. That's not enough. Tercer (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2013 where it is already listed. Praemonitus (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Same reason as above, not notable.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Static (American DJ)[edit]

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

Long-time unsourced BLP. Fails every possible notability guideline, no significant coverage to be found. Lennart97 (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP unsourced since 2012!?! There ought to be a medal for that. I see there are several DJs with the same name but I can’t see anything that would indicate this one is notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding anything to save this article as notable. Looks like he may have even edited it himself a few times. Oddly, I've also seen some of the same editors, i.e. Postcard Cathy, Derek R Bullamore, etc. on more than a few of these old stub AFD's lately. Megtetg34 (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this is a biography of a living person all statements need to be sourced to reliable material. Since this article has 0 reliable sources (or any sources at all), that means it is imperative we blank it, which is the same as deleting it. This could have been BLP prodded, but it works here at AfD. I thought we were to the point of no longer having unsourced BLPs, but I guess I was overly optimistic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 14 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. Sandstein 19:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of zoophilia[edit]

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

This may be a topic worthy of a "timeline" article, but this just isn't the article we should have.

Somewhat redundant to the more well-written History of zoophilia article
Created and edited almost exclusively by a sockpuppet account
A great many of the sources do not meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source
The writing is in some places, just bad i.e. "making bestiality a capital punishment" which is just backwards, in other places it is somewhat deceptive, as in "<jurisdiction> legalized bestiality." In pretty much every case what happened was a repeal of sodomy laws, which had the unintended side effect of effectively legalizing beastiality.

These problems are so prevalent throughout the article that I feel this is the rare case where it would be better to simply delete the whole thing than to try and fix it. If a good-faith user who isn't apparently interested in normalizing raping animals wants to re-create it without these problems that's fine. As it stands now this is an embarrassment. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the History of zoophilia as per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I can't find any guidance on when a timeline counts as redundant / when one should be created. Does wikipedia have one? There seem to be lots of redundant timelines on Wikipedia that are uncontested. But it seems like this timeline doesn't add too much. If this is not a Redundantfork, keep and cleanup. None of the other problems the articles has are WP:DEL-REASONs. I'd say most of the refs do meet WP:RS (books, laws). History of zoophilia is not necessarily better written. e. g. it seems to be wrong about the first criminalisation, as per Timeline: "c. 1,750 BCE – The Code of Hammurabi is written and in the code, King Hammurabi of the Paleo-Babylonian Empire proclaims capital punishment for anyone engaging in bestiality.[1]" ([1] being an RS book). This issue is mostly a question of cleaning up misleading wording, maybe WP:OR, and unsourced stuff (like the bizarre mention of death by horse penis). Need for clean up doesn't warrant deletion. --Trimton (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the points raised by Beeblebrox. The article was created by and the majority of the content came from a sockpuppet who had a clear pro-zoophilia/bestiality POV to push. The sock had issues of disruptive editing and adding WP:OR to zoophilia-related articles, so I'm skeptical of the sources and content that's currently in the timeline one. Better to just delete it all instead of merging dubious content into another article. Some1 (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although I appreciate Piotrus' concern about where to draw the line, the article's subject seems to just meet WP:NACADEMIC. Miniapolis 00:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Murphy (computer scientist)[edit]

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

It would be nice to save this (here's a cool tagline: "co-inventor of email"). Except that the sourcing is terrible and my BEFORE didn't help. Most of the sources in the article are articles written by the subject; BEFORE reveals a few mentions in passing, but nothing that clearly states he was a major influence on the field of computing; I can't locate as much a short paragraph summarizing his life and significance. As I wrote in my PROD "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." and despite the dePROD by User:Psychonaut, I still stand by this assessment (I did a second BEFORE right now too, using his shorten name "Dan" rather than "Daniel", still seeing nothing). By all means, let's rescue this if possible, but I failed at doing so. PS. I thought about redirecting to History of email, but that (pretty crappy) article doesn't even mention him currently, and the claim of being a co-creator of email is not clearly referenced in the current article, neither. The lead also claims is was involved in creating TOPS-20 (no mention in that article) and TENEX (operating system) (this one does mention him but without a reference...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did not seem him mentioned in any books on the history of computing, or in any other books at all. I searched his name with each of the software packages mentioned in the article and found no WP:RS at all.--- Possibly (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added another couple references by third parties. While these contain short mentions of his work rather than lengthy biographies, all three independent references now in the article are together, IMHO, sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. Besides this, he likely meets criteria 1 and/or 7 of WP:NACADEMIC, as evidenced by his edited and presumably invited contribution to Dave Walden's "Anecdotes" column in IEEE Annals of the History of Computing and the many hundreds of citations in scholarly literature to his technical papers on TENEX. (Unfortunately, citation indexes such as Scopus and Google Scholar either don't maintain dedicated author profiles for him, or else list only a subset of his publications, though by searching for his papers by title and making note of the citation counts, it's possible to verify my claim.) —Psychonaut (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Psychonaut, Where can I see those "many hundreds of citations in scholarly literature to his technical papers"? And sadly, all the mentions of him are very short and therefore fail WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I gave two examples in my contribution above: Scopus and Google Scholar. Search for his name and/or for his paper titles, and you'll see citation counts for the papers, which should be hyperlinked to lists of those citing papers. Most likely the same thing can be done with other citation indexes, such as Microsoft Academic and Web of Science, though keep in mind that all these indexes have disjoint coverage of papers and citations. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We always have problems finding sources for scientists and engineers who make significant contributions while working in industry rather than academia. However Murphy created TECO and was a major developer of other notable software. In this case we have an author of notable products which are well covered by sources. If TECO were the only one I would say merge to that article as we do with authors of only a single notable book; with multiple well-reviewed books they have their own articles. Murphy was also a major force in TENEX, TOPS-10, and TOPS-20 (project lead). Citation counts aren't the issue here. This isn't scholarly research; this is company research reported in its corresponding association publications and in this case important in the history of computer science. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TECO, TENEX, and TOPS-20 are three significant accomplishments, all well known systems in computer science at the time (though I guess memory is fading now...one of my colleagues still has a PDP-10 front panel in his office). His role in the earliest email system may be bigger than that. All are adequately documented now. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein, there are three contributions so an article is warranted. --hroest 18:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Despite the assertions above, there is still no WP:SIGCOV. All the arguments are simple variations of WP:ITSIMPORTANT, with no sources to assert this. If he is important in the history of computer sciences, we need sources saying that and showing his life and achievements have been subject to more than a passing sentence here and there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You are completely disregarding the arguments based on WP:NACADEMIC. See in particular the section of that guideline on citation metrics. Scopus is known to have pretty poor coverage of scientific fields, particularly before 1996, but even it shows 153 citations for Murphy's articles, including 86 for his original TENEX paper (no mean feat for a computer science publication in 1972). Google Scholar shows 236 citations for the same paper, plus scores more for his other papers. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Psychonaut, I don't like dissing NACADEMIC, as I generlally think we need to be more inclusive for scholars, but in theory, specialized notability guidelines just supplement, don't overrule, GNG. I always have a hard time believing that we should have an article for someone that nobody out there has ever considered important enough to write even a short biographical paragraph for... Wikipedia should not be the first place to publish it. OR, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 14 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. Sandstein 19:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SK Jewellery Group[edit]

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:NCORP. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search linked me to primary sources thus aren’t independent of the organization hence does next to nothing to establish notability. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep I did a prior search in Googlenews before creating this page. When you search "SK Jewellery Group" in googlenews, the result shows as follows

https://www.google.com/search?q=SK+Jewellery+Group&newwindow=1&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk021tfN7oNHBlwwxMYE1FzXx_hQqgg:1616577846698&ei=NgVbYJ6ZKqG3gwfx7r6oAQ&start=0&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwiejLfizcjvAhWh2-AKHXG3DxU4ChDy0wMIggE&biw=1366&bih=625&dpr=1

A lot of sources from Business Times (Singapore) and The Straits Times. These are organic sources earned by the subject.

There are also other sources found such as https://www.asiaone.com/business/sk-jewellery-launches-lab-grown-diamond-brand-star-carat-shop-diamonds-millenials, and this

https://www.theedgesingapore.com/news/company-news/sk-jewellery-shares-surge-over-50-upon-receiving-privatisation-offer

and many others. I believe that those are reliable sources. From the above, I strongly believe that the topic meets WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Va-be-Fratellis (talk • contribs) 09:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question I notice that you created the article in one edit. For a newbie editor, this is very unusual. Have you ever edited Wikipedia previously? Do you have a connection with the company? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of articles about SK Jewellery in on national newspapers. A search on Singapore' newspapers archive shows 500+ articles. Although there are a number of articles being native content advertisements, through there I can eventually find information such as: https://www.todayonline.com/business/soo-kee-breaks-new-ground-thai-partner-aurora, https://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/soo-kee-group-launches-bullion-business, https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/today20150812-1.2.52.4?ST=1&AT=filter&DF=&DT=&AO=false&NPT=&L=&CTA=&NID=&CT=ARTICLE&WC=&YR=&k=sk+jewellery%26ka%3dsk+jewellery&P=3&Display=0&filterS=0&QT=sk,jewellery&oref=article https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/today20150228-1.2.20.4?ST=1&AT=filter&DF=&DT=&AO=false&NPT=&L=&CTA=&NID=&CT=ARTICLE&WC=&YR=&k=sk+jewellery%26ka%3dsk+jewellery&P=4&Display=0&filterS=0&QT=sk,jewellery&oref=article. I concur with Va-be-Fratellis' vote. – robertsky (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass based on any reference I've seen. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".

"Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

An examination of the references hasn't uncovered any reference that meets the criteria. The Business Times and Straits Times articles I've seen are announcement and PR or interviews - fails WP:ORGIND. The references from The Edge mentioned above are also announcements or comments on share prices - there's nothing that meets the requirement for "Independent Content" as per ORGIND.

I'm happy to revisit my !vote if someone turns up some good references - perhaps an analyst report might exist that I haven't found. In the meantime, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an ad, and doesn't seem too notable. References are either primary or, as HighKing said, "announcement and PR or interviews". AdoTang (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of particular concern is the repeated sourcing and citing in the article from the topic's own website with grandiose claims of this award and that award, etc. with no organization actually listed that gave the topic an award in the first place, and no independent sources found covering these "notable milestones" or "awards". Megtetg34 (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the above, mostly press releases or quotes from their own website.Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Alhtough there is a lot of coverage, all are Tier 2 publications, nothing well known. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment: straitstimes.com and businesstimes.com sources have been used multiples times. Per Wiki guidelines, multiple sources from same publication would be counted once.Webmaster862 (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lithopsian (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boo! Appetweet[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. YouTube and Facebook don't really count as nationally known critics, no evidence of awards or similar, not apparently historically notable. Previously a redirect to Looney Tunes Cartoons, but reversion to this is being disputed. Another possible target is List of Looney Tunes Cartoons shorts. Lithopsian (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: in a case of very bad timing, the disputing editor has just been banned as a sock and all edits reverted. Further discussion does not seem productive. Lithopsian (talk) 18:56, 7 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. No redirect as there is no valid target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're Still Not Safe In a Japanese Car[edit]

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

DEPRODed by the Creator w/o Explanation, No signs of notability per WP:NSONG, WP:BEFORE gave me no significant coverage CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the "no indication of notability" is wrong, it clearly has an indication for being a #1 single...Whether it warrants a standalone is another matter. EGGIDICAE🥚 18:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae ? You know that I (almost) always trust your experienced opinion but I checked all google searches now 3 times and there is absolute no indication of being a No. 1 Hit ??! CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's necessarily accurate, I'm just pointing out that it is a claim. EGGIDICAE🥚 18:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claim? I checked the article's history and it never said that this was a #1 single. Instead, it only included a false link to a list of such songs from 1983. A blue link is not a statement of any kind, much less one of notability. The article did say that it was a "one-hit wonder" which is something you say about a musician, and saying that about a song, as this article does, makes no logical sense. Honestly, it did not take me too long to figure all that out. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go have that fight with the WP:CCS crowd, not me. Thanks. EGGIDICAE🥚 02:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Credible Claim of Significance" standard is immaterial for something that is neither credible nor a claim while saying nothing about significance. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be fair, the indication is there, but is clearly wrong because the page of those number one singles, doesn't feature this song. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See above for more on the article's false information. Also, the musician has no article of his own; if you click on his name it goes to the John Goldsmith disambig page and none of the guys there are this musician. The song was absolutely not a hit and it is beyond obscure. Discogs says it exists and someone is trying to sell a vinyl copy on eBay, and that's all I could find. The article also attempts a link to the musician's AllMusic page, which is empty. Not even close to the requirements at WP:NSONG and we could also cite WP:EXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:17, 9 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) 18:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Association football world champions[edit]

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

WP:REDUNDANT as all the information is already covered at FIFA World Cup. This also appears to be a very poor translation from a foreign language article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant, as exists at FIFA World Cup#Results and List of FIFA World Cup finals, where it's written in much better English. No need this article notwithstanding the translation issues. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: not needed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, and does not merit being turned into a redirect. Giant Snowman 17:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete reduntant Yetanothermortal (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the deletion arguments Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete poorly made fork. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although it's hard to tell as it's so badly written, this article seems mainly to be a coatrack to advance the claim that Uruguay are four-time world champions rather than the two times which most people recognise. Just no need for this article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed, no improvement on existing articles mentioned in nom and Joseph2302 JW 1961^Talk 20:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:the article is necessary and the sources irrefutable. If most people only know 2 Uruguayan titles it is because they are naive on the subject and it's been 100 years. See also: List of world champion football clubs, it's the same thing.I'm Italian, I'm not interested in pumping up Uruguay, I'm only interested in the historical truth about this encyclopedia. the new generations can never ignore the past.--Poppipos (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Poppipos: Please explain how this article is different to FIFA World Cup. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)**[reply]
  - It is different because the FIFA World Cup is a different competition from the Olympic football games, two competitions that assign the same title, that of world champion, but beware: only the Olympics of 24 and 28 have been recognized as assignees of the title of world champions, because they are played with FIFA regulations, all up to the creation of the FIFA World Cup event which since 1930 has assigned the world title. This happened after the IOC and FIFA had disagreements, the only 2 tournaments awarded the world title are THE WORLD CUP and the football Olympics of 24 and 28: because there was no world cup, the tournament was organized by FIFA with the IOC and the fear in the document that I put in the source n. 5 ear that FIFA recognizes these 2 tournaments as world cup (Origins of the World Cup) is very clear. In fact, at source n.6 we read this and in addition we read that FIFA authorizes Uruguay to bring 4 stars on the shirt (unique case) it has not authorized Italy to bring 5 stars or France 3 stars. Only uruguay. In the source n.1 there are period documents that attest to the 4 world titles to Uruguay. All this is not explained in the article concerning the world cup because it is a different event, such as the Intercontinental Cup and the world club championship, two different competitions that assign the same title, that of world club champion. sorry for my English.--Poppipos (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surely already having this at Star (football badge)#International and Uruguay national football team#Team image is enough, without an article trying to argue the case in bad English? Uncle G (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for my English, I thought I was better, sorry, I'm Italian, not a native speaker. I ask you if you can give me some help to improve this article--Poppipos (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? We already have this at the three articles with proper subjects. Why do we need an entire new article with an odd title arguing the case through synthesis, starting from what Latin words mean? Uncle G (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
because in the other articles this is not explained. We only talk about the world cup, the statistics are important, without this article the new generations will believe that those titles are not world cup titles, and instead they are. It will be believed that the world titles start from 1930 while in truth they start from 1924--Poppipos (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. We've had an explanation at FIFA World Cup#History since 2006. Uncle G (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read Uncle, but it is a bit 'little. In addition, there is no page that deals with the statistics by equating the titles (intended as qualification to the winner) as officially FIFA does. Why is there (correctly) a page for clubs (List of world champion football clubs) and no page for national teams?--Poppipos (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- question: can you change the title to an annex in English? how does it happen in wiki spain? the title in WSpanish is Anexo:Selecciones de fútbol campeonas del mundo (it is an annex not a real article)--Poppipos (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why did this require AfD? WP:CSD#A10 immediately comes to mind... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could see an A10 being declined because it isn't exactly identical in terms of content and in terms of the point that the creator is trying to make about Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Adds no value. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The article is about a real thing, but I respect everyone's opinions, of course, but on the world cup page you could add only the list of titles (List of winners), and leave the link of this page that redirects you to the section on the world cup page, can you?--Poppipos (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Unnecessary article where content in more depth already exists elsewhere. Ajf773 (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tessaracter (talk) 05:21, 12 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kirtzman[edit]

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

Recreated not long after being deleted the first time; I don't see any exception activities following the previous deletion that would justify the existence of a new article. BD2412 T 05:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last discussion had dealt primarily with the concern of COI. The coverage is appearing decent to pass WP:GNG.Chirota (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist and political consultant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails Wikipedia:GNG--MadD ^(talk) 11:21, 8 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoheb Sharif[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 15 FC career of which some matches were in the County Championship. There seem to be some interviews relating to him playing club cricket as well which is likely SIGCOV. There seems to be other bits in a basic search also. Not sure there's a suitable redirect if required here though as he played for a few different FC sides, despite Essex probably being the most prominent. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 15 FC matches, several in county championship, during which he scored two tons, along with a long county second XI career. Think it would be relatively easy to convert this into a proper article given a couple of hours and access to Wisden and press reports from when he was playing. Will pass WP:GNG given some work. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually think this article's a perfect example of why we're having such a difficult time with cricket generally. There's some coverage of him (in the sense that there are articles which decently mention him like [5] and [6]), but it's all of him as a club cricketer and don't really count towards notability. There's some coverage of him (in the sense of match reports) like [7], which is not an insignificant match to have played in. What's bizarre though is that there's almost no coverage of him online in his four games with Essex, in spite of him playing during the "internet era." Cricinfo has a blurb, meaning it's more than WP:SPORTCRIT this time at least, and there's the routine transactional stuff such as [8]. There's a couple match report from the BBC which includes him but it's brief and match reports don't count. I just find the whole thing quite odd, really - there really should be something beyond the odd match report? SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Something of a journeyman FC player. I'd be surprised if his 15 FC matches didn't warrant mention in Wisden, particularly given his two FC centuries. And yes, coverage of cricket can be a tad crappy. I often find more on obscure 1890s players than recent players, the standard of cricket reporting post-WWII became somewhat lazy and focused more on local club cricket. Where I am, a cricketer for Havant Cricket Club will receive more coverage in the The Portsmouth News than a county player for Hampshire, which given the difference in match standard and importance is shocking. More often than not, it won't be until an obituary appears in Wisden or other RS that more info becomes avaliable - even then since the 1970s Wisden has gotten somewhat 'slack' with its obituraries. StickyWicket (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Cambridge UCCE & MCCU players. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Sharif[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cambridge UCCE & MCCU players Played a couple of games but not seeing anything in the coverage to suggest passing GNG. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD though. Probably could have been BOLDly done to save the AfD as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Rugbyfan22. Bebopjohnson (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rugbyfan22 DevaCat1 (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Cambridge UCCE & MCCU players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misem Zaidi[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cambridge UCCE & MCCU players Played 1 game, but only really seeing minor coverage in match reports from his club career, and not enough to pass GNG. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Probably could have been BOLDly redirected to save the AfD also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rugbyfan22- only one FC match, for a university side, and did nothing in that game. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Cambridge UCCE & MCCU players. But since there's limited participation, feel free to unredirect without asking if substantial sources are located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zain Shahzad[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cambridge UCCE & MCCU players Has played 4 games, but I couldn't find anything other than match reports, and not enough to pass GNG. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Again, probably could have been BOLDly redirected to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Cambridge UCCE & MCCU players. But since there's limited participation, feel free to unredirect without asking if sources are located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Amin (Cambridge MCCU cricketer)[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cambridge UCCE & MCCU players Played a fair few uni games, and there's a small amount of coverage on his uni cricket but not enough to pass GNG. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Voice of Lancaster[edit]

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

No sources in the article. I can't find any independent sources at all. ColinFine (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source I can find in Google are a Russian book, which I suspect is just a copy and pasted version of the Wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. I have also failed to find secondary sources that would talk about the subject. Less Unless (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough coverage to make this article qualify for GNG. Citterz (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sourced. Bebopjohnson (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not believe a diocesan newsletter is likely to be notable. Possibly redirect to Catholic diocese of Lancester. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Whereas the keep voters have provided some sources, the delete voters were not convinced with the quality of the sources. Concerning the copyvio charges, I (albeit vriefly) checked the current verson and the foundational version, and I was not able to detect any copyvio. For the time being, I am just keeping the article--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newellton High School[edit]

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

This AfD nomination is part of an ongoing contributor copyright investigation.

This subject is not notable; I checked Google Books, News, and Newspapers. Every reference used is either unreliable or refers to this (defunct) high school in passing. Half of the pictures used are of the headstones of former faculty, which is rather morbid and off-topic. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 23:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 23:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 23:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it is true that Google Books, News, and Newspapers did not find anything useful related to this school, I was able to find a source from Shreveport, Louisiana. If you type "Parent-teacher group may sue because of brawl at the school" into Google or Newspapers.com (I have access to it), you will find a news story from 2006. Shreveport is far enough from the school in order for it to be independent. I have only done a cursory search so far, but I will do more by the end of this week. I have not written my comment as a !vote just yet. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt you will turn up much more, and make something of this article, but I would be glad to be wrong. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 03:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am just finding so many trivial mentions to the point I am concerned that I am missing out on the important stuff. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second. I found another source from Mississippi in 1913. Here you go.

I also found another source from 1951. Here you go again. It appears that there is a crap ton of coverage at the state level. They are independent because they are often several counties away. I might change my !vote to keep. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your "state level" source is like 2 towns away from the school is located and it's hardly a regional or national news outlet. So it doesn't really work. Also, I you haven't even voted and therefore I'm not sure how you can change your vote to keep ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article looks like it doesn't fit the whole "audience" thing due to being made up of mostly "trivial", local information that wouldn't be relevant to a broad audience. For instance, the pictures of the gravestones of formers teachers. While things like that would be good for a local blog post, they are way to local for Wikipedia IMO. Also, from what I can tell the two "notable" alumni are extremely questionably notable (likely their articles could be AfDed also). I'm not sure what else there is though beyond extremely local, "niche" information that could be added to the article so it could be notable though. Since there just isn't the in-depth coverage out there about the school that would be needed for guidelines like WP:NORG. I mean, it is a high school. So that's not surprising. Ultimately, I think we are "missing the important stuff" because there isn't anything important about the high school. At least when it comes to Wikipedia's standards of what is important for articles/notability and what isn't. BTW Vami_IV, cool signature. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep maybe merge There is more to life than Google. We are judging on the possibility that references exist- not that they have been found! We don't mention teachers so some stuff must go- but details of depopulation and the closure is of interest to some general EU readers- let them read it and judge. The depopulation and closure was discussed by schoolboards so will have press coverage. As is it looks like a start class missing infobox. ClemRutter (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Find that press coverage, and then post it. Don't just say it exists. Coming to AfD and going, "but it has to have coverage!" accomplishes literally nothing unless you're going to add those sources. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools should be presumed to be notable because it's very difficult for a high school to exist without being written about in reliable sources. A quick search turned up [9], [10], [11], and there's plenty more where that came from to satisfy WP:GNG and to write a proper article.----Pontificalibus 15:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In light of the new sources provided, I have decided to change my !vote to keep. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the deal with the edit waring (small w) over this being closed or not? While I'm of the opinion that it should be relisted, it has been open for 7 days now. So, closing as no consensus or relisting it should both be viable options. Maybe the people doing the edit waring (small w) can just go with one and be done with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: It's not an "edit war" as such; it's a WP:LTA impersonating established users, and some of us reverting said LTA. I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept; I haven't even glanced at the article and probably neither has the LTA. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know. That's why I said "small w." I don't think it rises to the level of violating the edit warring policies or anything, but I have received like 5 email alerts because of the back and forth in the last day or two. So really it should be dealt with either way. If it's because of an LTA (and I'm not saying it isn't) then that should be taken up with ANI or whatever. Since clearly the back and forth isn't accomplishing anything. That's all. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure most admins and CUs are already aware of this LTA. Socks are already being blocked and locked on sight, so there's not much more to be done. If the page is protected, they'll just pick another AFD. An ANI thread would just give them the attention they crave. WP:RBI is the way to go. Again, their actions are irrelevant to the outcome of this AFD; they just picked it at random and probably haven't read it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree. Except point 2 of RBI does say "Block the user committing the vandalism without comment (or, if you're not an administrator, ask one to do it for you)" and it would be useful to the amount of needless email people who are subscribed to this are getting if nothing else. Plus, your already giving the person attention by reverting them repeatedly anyway. I don't see anywhere in the RBI article where it says to stop at 1 and just do that one thing over and over indefinitely. Also, if it's been 7 days and the AfD could technically be closed as no consensus at this point then doing so isn't really abuse is it? So, for me this seems like a personal issue between a couple of editors that need to work it out and not just just a vandalism thing. Maybe the user closing it has a history of this type of stuff, but I really don't care if them closing it as no consensus is "correct" in this case. It's not like they can't be blocked and the AfD can be closed at the same time either. They aren't mutually exclusive. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, it would have been better if I had just waited until they were blocked before reverting. That's always a judgement call. But yes, impersonating another user is always abuse, even if the edits stand on the merits. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've semi-protected this page to prevent the on-going disruption. Any admin please feel free to remove the protection if you feel this is overkill. GirthSummit_(blether) 10:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 10:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable high school that just happened to close down. I assume whoever wrote it must've had a connection to it. Poor way to immortalize it. AdoTang (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having mostly trivia, copyvio concerns to offline sources, concerns per nom, a complete lack of reliable sources in the article itself, a lack of sources presented as to saving. If we don't delete I vote a complete rewrite/nuking because this content cannot be trusted to be clean. Sennecaster (What now?) 01:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the three articles I posted above containing in-depth coverage, sufficient to satisfy WP:NSCHOOL? ---Pontificalibus 04:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question of "in-depth" coverage aside, all of your sources are local and there has to regional/national coverage for something to be considered notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No that's not true. While WP:ORG requires regional or national coverage, WP:GNG does not. And WP:NSCHOOL makes it clear that schools are notable if they satisfy GNG alone.----Pontificalibus 12:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RfC recently (herethat determined the proper notability guidelines for secondary schools is WP:NORG, not WP:GNG. So, actually, your the one saying the thing that isn't true here. Also, it's slightly weird and pretty circular to cite WP:NORG as a way to make a case that WP:NORG doesn't matter. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC was on whether the mere verified existence of a school was sufficient to give a presumption of notability. It most certainly did not conclude that policy should be changed to require that schools pass WP:ORG instead of WP:GNG. The current policy at WP:NSCHOOL is quite clear - schools only need to satisfy GNG - therefore the coverage by non-local sources as required at the more stringent WP:ORGDEPTH is not necessary. ----Pontificalibus 14:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSCHOOL as a policy is a part of WP:ORG and your the one literally saying we need to follow WP:NSCHOOL. Your the one that brought it up. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK let me say it another way - WP:NSCHOOL states we either need to satisfy WP:ORG or GNG. Non-local coverage is not required by GNG, so the sources I posted above are good for a pass. If you think it is confusing that WP:NSCHOOL is contained within WP:ORG and refers to the notability requirements of the rest of WP:ORG vs GNG, you could always propose splitting WP:NSCHOOL to a new page or otherwise rewording it.----Pontificalibus 06:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, now I realize what the problem is. Originally I had meant to reference an RfC about the SNG versus the GNGs or what people in Wikiprojects come up with. I guess I linked to (and referenced) the wrong RfC article though. So that was my bad. The point is, WP:SNG is clear that they help clarify the GNG for exactly these types of articles and should not simply be ignored for other, more broad standards. The point in the RfC for schools and how it relates is that it was determined that high schools shouldn't be treated any differently when it comes to notability then any other type of organization. In other words, they don't merit special standards simply for being schools, and every other type of organization is notable if they pass WP:NORG. While I'm aware of the clause that you mentioned, simply going with that alone without considering the things I have would be extreme cherry picking. Really, WP:NORG is an extremely low bar to pass anyway. That said, your sources still don't fit WP:GNG or other guidelines anyway IMO for reasons I don't really feel like going into (mostly WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTNEWS, but I don't think it's worth litigating). --Adamant1 (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I want the !Keep voters to note that this article is listed in an open Contributor Copyright Investigation. And again on two different subpages of the same investigation (Subpage 12 and Subpage 15). Please consider whether you want decade-old copyright violations to remain on the Encyclopedia. I sure don't, hence this nomination. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 05:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated it for notability, a deletion on that basis precludes immediate recreation. If you want it deleted due to copyright content, an AfD nomination is not the correct procedure.----Pontificalibus 06:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. I nominated it for deletion with these words: This AfD nomination is part of an ongoing contributor copyright investigation. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 09:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s clearly a nomination for lack of notability, which is what the participants including you have spent their time addressing. As there is clearly no consensus to delete, turning up at the end and asking keep voters to reconsider based on copyright grounds isn’t going to cut it. Copyright violations are addressed via our policy here which doesn’t include AfD. --Pontificalibus 09:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus on whether the subject meets WP:NSCHOOL yet.

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is certainly not the ideal place for dealing with copyright problems. The gigantic banner on the main AfD page mentions so.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is so much detailed coverage in local media (e.g. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) that I don't see how it can be argued this doesn't pass GNG and thus WP:NSCHOOL. ----Pontificalibus 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: It has been demonstrated above that there is coverage enough for an article about the school, but said article is still a Billy Hathorn article. So I propose this: I send this article to WP:CP for speedy, presumptive deletion, and while it awaits that, a new article is written to replace it. I am absolutely willing to put my money where my mouth is, if someone with Newspapers.com access will assist me. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 19:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:24, 9 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. Weighing the arguments below, consensus appears that the use of sources does not meet significant coverage threshold required by GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.K. Firos[edit]

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

Bringing again this to AFD because G4 may not might not be valid here. Some changes has been made from the previous version. This was deleted a few days back after this. The subject is only a member of the state committe of the students wing of a party. Never got electes into any legislative bodies hence fails NPOL. Recently participated in election and there is no evidence of notability as there is no sigcov thus failing GNG also.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdoTang (talk • contribs) 18:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has not held any role that would confer an automatic presumption of notability just because he exists, and the article is still referenced to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, with short blurbs and glancing namechecks of his existence within articles that aren't about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG, which is not the kind of sourcing we're looking for. GNG is not just "count the number of webpages that can be found with his name in them, and keep him if he surpasses an arbitrary number" — it tests sources for their type, their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, and not every possible "source" is necessarily always a notability-building source. Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If being Very Badly Written were a deletion reason, this article would certainly qualify. Now it has to do with qualifying for deletion only on notability grounds: I can't see a single thing that even suggest notability. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete Subject has notability biography. The person has General Secretary of Muslim Youth League INDIA , ^[1] And he has Pro Bono Lawyer in india ^[2] he also a politician from the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/cpm-flouting-norms-in-appointing-cu-staff-p-k-firos/articleshow/78268378.cms^[3] he also UDF Candidate in Constituency of Tanur ( Kerala Legislative Assembly ) ^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msp7com (talk • contribs)

None of which are, in and of themselves, reasons why a person would get a Wikipedia article. Verifying that he exists as a person who has jobs is not sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ {{Cite web|url=https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/munavvar-ali-thangal-elected-myl-state-president-muslim-youth-league-1.1581884
^ {{Cite web|url=https://resources.gaje.org/conferences/9th-worldwide-conference/2017-presenters-bios/?id=5906
^ {{Cite web|url=https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/cpm-attempts-for-backdoor-appointments-in-calicut-university-alleges-youth-league-1.5073986
^ {{Cite web|url=https://www.news18.com/news/politics/tanur-candidate-list-key-contests-in-tanur-assembly-constituency-of-kerala-3589433.html

Keep - whilst PK Firos might not currently hold any public office to give automatic pass per WP:NPOL, there is definitely WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG by any standards. In regards to PK Firos, there are plenty of articles in mainstream media on him, articles about the various scandals and disputes he's involved in and his election campaign (~~currently ongoing~~) has high public profile (have a look for example at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQF05durpoM ). In fact even in the last 24h there are multiple news stories on him in relation to the latest Supreme Court ruling. To recap, per WP:SIGCOV, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," below a selection, by no means exhaustive, which illustrates that such coverage exists;

Outlet	Article	Date	Non-Trival Mention?	WP:RS?	Independent from subject?
Mathrubhumi	Misappropriation of Kathua-Unnao fund; Youth League’s PK Firoz faces allegation	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Times of India (Malayalam edition Samayam)	തനിക്കെതിരായ കേസ് ബിനീഷ് കോടിയേരിയെ ജയിലില്‍ കിടത്തിയതിന്‍റെ പകയെന്ന് പികെ ഫിറോസ് ("PK Feroz says the case against him is revenge for imprisoning Bineesh Kodiyeri")	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Onmanorama	Kathua fund scam: Police book Muslim Youth League leaders PK Firos, CK Subair	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
The Cue	ബംഗളൂരു കലാപത്തിന് നേതൃത്വം നല്‍കിയത് എസ്.ഡി.പി.ഐ, കൈവെട്ട് മോഡല്‍ കര്‍ണാടകയില്‍ പരീക്ഷിക്കുന്നുവെന്ന് പി.കെ ഫിറോസ് ("PK Feroz says SDPI, which led the Bangalore riots, is testing the hand-wringing model in Karnataka")	Aug 2020	Yes	probably	Yes
Kerala Kaumudi	Parliament attack happened when Kargil coffin scam had kicked up storm: PK Firos	Jan 2020	Article on comment by PK Firos on other issue, not in-depth about him per se	Yes	Yes
Deccan Chronicle	PK Firoz forged my letter, alleges James Mathew	Feb 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
The Hindu	Firos accuses Pinarayi of misleading Assembly	Dec 2018	Article about statement made by PK Firos	Yes	Yes
Oneindia	ലീഗിന്റെ കത്വ ഫണ്ട്‌ ശേഖരണം; സമഗ്ര അന്വേഷണം വേണമെന്ന്‌ ഐഎന്‍എല്‍ ("Katwa Fundraising of the League; INL calls for comprehensive probe")	Feb 2021	No. Article talks about Indian National League accusations against corrupt IUML officials, PK Firos is portrayed in photo so reading between lines the accusation is directed at him but no discussion explictly about him in the article text	Yes	Yes
Kerala Kaumudi	ആരോപണം തള്ളി പി.കെ.ഫിറോസ് ("PK Feroz denies the allegation")	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Asianet News	പി കെ ഫിറോസിനെതിരായ വ്യാജ രേഖ ആരോപണം; അന്വേഷണം ആവശ്യപ്പെടുമെന്ന് മന്ത്രി എ സി മൊയ്തീന്‍ ("Fake document allegation against PK Feroz; Minister AC Moideen said an inquiry would be called}	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Asianet News	'അപകീര്‍ത്തികരമായ വാര്‍ത്ത': കൈരളിക്കും ദേശാഭിമാനിക്കും പികെ ഫിറോസിന്റെ വക്കീല്‍ നോട്ടീസ് ("'Defamatory news': PK Feroz's lawyer issues notice to Kairali and Deshabhimani")	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Times of India (Malayalam edition Samayam)	'കത്വ, ഉന്നാവോ ഇരകൾക്കായി പിരിച്ച കോടികൾ പികെ ഫിറോസ് മുക്കി'; ഒരു കോടി എവിടെയെന്ന് ചോദ്യം ("'PK Feroz drowns crores collected for Katwa and Unnao victims'; The question is where is a crore")	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Madhyamam	കേസെടുത്തത് സി.പി.എം തനിക്ക് നൽകുന്ന ഏറ്റവും ചെറിയ ശിക്ഷയെന്ന് പി.കെ ഫിറോസ് ("PK Feroz said that filing a case was the least punishment given to him by the CPM")	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mathrubhumi	118 A; ആദ്യ കേസ് പി.കെ ഫിറോസിനെ ഫെയ്‌സ്ബുക്കില്‍ അപമാനിച്ചതിന്: പിന്‍വലിക്കുമെന്ന് ലീഗ് നേതാവ് ("118 A; First case for insulting PK Feroz on Facebook: League leader to withdraw")	Nov 2020	Police arrests a person for insulting PK Firos on Facebook	Yes	Yes
Chandrika	പിണറായി കേരളത്തില്‍ അമിത്ഷായുടെ കടമ ഏറ്റെടുക്കുന്നുവെന്ന് പികെ ഫിറോസ് ("PK Feroz says Pinarayi is taking on the role of Amitsha in Kerala")	Dec 2020	Statement by PK Firos	ibid	IUML party organ
Malayala Manorama	മണിക്കൂറുകൾക്കുള്ളിൽ 6 ലക്ഷം; ആർക്കു വേണ്ടി? എത്ര കിട്ടി?; ജലീലിനെതിരെ പികെ ഫിറോസ് ("6 lakhs within hours; For whom? How much did you get ?; PK Feroz against Jalil")	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Oneindia	പികെ ഫിറോസിന്റെ പേരിൽ 13.90 ലക്ഷം രൂപയുടെ സമ്പാദ്യം,ഭാര്യയുടെ സമ്പാദ്യം ഇങ്ങനെ ('13.90 lakh in the name of PK Feroz and his wife')	Mar 2021	Article on declared assets of 3 candidates, PK Firoz one of them	Yes	Yes
Oneindia	ആ 6000 വോട്ടുകള്‍ ആര്‍ക്ക് കിട്ടും... നെഞ്ചിടിപ്പ് കൂടി പികെ ഫിറോസ്, ആശങ്ക ഒഴിയാതെ അബ്ദുറഹ്മാനും ('Who will get those 6000 votes ... PK Feroz and Abdurahman without any worries?')	Mar 2021	Article on the various candidates in fray in the assembly seat - two passages dedicated to Firoz: "Muslim League activists are excited about the arrival of PK Feroz's campaign. PK Feroz's campaign is fueled by setting up boards, visiting homes and attending family gatherings. The Muslim League is now embarking on a campaign to provoke the people by holding vehicle rallies. [...] PK Feroz is a person who is sharply critical of the SDPI, the PDP and the Welfare Party. So the Left camp is hoping that these parties will not support Feroz. Moreover, part of Feroze's speech that the Muslim League cannot oppose the RSS is widely circulated."	Yes	Yes
Oneindia	താനൂരില്‍ വി അബ്ദുറഹ്മാന്‍ തന്നെ മല്‍സരിക്കും; നേരിടാന്‍ പികെ ഫിറോസ് എത്തുമോ, പൊടിപാറും ("V Abdurahman will contest in Tanur; Will PK Feroz arrive to face off, dusting off")	Mar 2021	Summary of the field of main candidates in the assembly seat, Feroz mentioned in headline and intro	Yes	Yes
Oneindia	പിഎസ്സി ഉദ്യോഗാര്‍ത്ഥികളുടെ സമരം: ചിന്ത ജെറോമിന് തുറന്ന കത്തുമായി പികെ ഫിറോസ്, രൂക്ഷവിമര്‍ശനം ('PSC Candidates' Strike: PK Feroz Criticizes Open Thought Jerome' [sic])	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Asianet News	ജനങ്ങളെ കബളിപ്പിച്ചതിന് മന്ത്രി മാപ്പ് പറയണമെന്ന് പികെ ഫിറോസ് P K Firos about K T Jaleel	Mar 2021	PK Feroz interviewed in live TV	Yes	Yes
MediaOne TV	എല്ലാ വിഭാഗം ജനങ്ങളുടെയും വോട്ട് സ്വീകരിക്കും, ദീപിക സിങിനെ കൊണ്ടുവന്നത് പൂഴികടകന്‍; പികെ ഫിറോസ് ('All sections of the people will accept the vote, brought by Deepika Singh Poozhikadakan; PK Feroz')	Mar 2021	PK Feroz interviewed on campaign trail	Yes	Yes
Malayalam Television	വോട്ട് ചോദിച്ച് ഹാർബറിൽ എത്തിയ താനൂർ മണ്ഡലം യൂഡിഫ് സ്ഥാനാർഥി പികെ ഫിറോസ് ('Tanur constituency UDF candidate PK Feroz arrived in the harbor to ask for votes')	Mar 2021	Yes	?	Yes
നാട് നന്നാകാൻ UDF	JERSY NUMBER 9. PK FIROS.യുവാക്കളോടൊപ്പം പന്തുതട്ടി പികെ.ഫിറോസ് ('PK Feroz hitting the ball with the youngsters')	Mar 2021	Yes	No	No
Marunadan TV	താനൂര്‍ പിടിക്കാന്‍ ബുളളറ്റില്‍ എത്തി പികെ ഫിറോസ് Pk Firos Viral video ('PK Feroz reached the bullet to catch Tanur')	Mar 2021	Yes	seems like it	?
MediaOne TV	കാൽപന്ത് കളിയുടെ നാട്ടിൽ പന്ത് തട്ടി വോട്ട് തേടി താനൂരിലെ യുഡിഎഫ് സ്ഥാനാർഥി പികെ ഫിറോസ് ('PK Feroz, UDF candidate from Tanur seeks votes by hitting the ball in the land of football')	Mar 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
UDF campaign presumably	SONG FOR PK FIROS പികെ. ഫിറോസ് സാഹിബിന് വേണ്ടി അണിയിച്ചൊരുക്കിയ തിരഞ്ഞെടുപ്പ് ഗാനം ('PK. Election song composed for Feroz Sahib')	Mar 2021	Election campaign song for Feroz	No	No
Mathrubhumi News	എനര്‍ജി സൊലൂഷന്‍സ് കമ്പനി എങ്ങനെ നിര്‍മ്മാണം നടത്തി- പികെ ഫിറോസ് ('How the Energy Solutions Company built- PK Firos')	Aug 2020	Firoz interviewed	Yes	Yes
Kairali TV	കത്വ-ഉന്നാവോ വിഷയങ്ങളില്‍ പിരിച്ച തുക തിരിമറി നടത്തി പികെ ഫിറോസ് Mid day Kairali News ("PK Feroz misappropriates funds in Katwa-Unnao cases")	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Manorama News	സിപിഎമ്മിനെ മന്ത്രി കെടി ജലീൽ ബ്ലാക്ക്മെയിൽ ചെയ്തു: പികെ ഫിറോസ് PK Firoz Press Meet ("Minister KT Jalil blackmails CPM: PK Feroz")	Jan 2019	Feroz speaking at press conf	Yes	Yes
Malabar Times	പി കെ ഫിറോസിന് താനൂരിൽ വൻ ജനാവലിയുടെ ഉജ്വല വരവേൽപ്പ് - pk firoz - Thanur - Niyamasabha Election ("PK Firoz received a warm welcome from a large crowd in Tanur")	Mar 2021	Yes
Asianet News	മുസ്ലിം ലീഗിന്റെ സ്ഥാനാർത്ഥി പട്ടികയിൽ പികെ ഫിറോസും PK Firoz in Muslim league's candidate list	Mar 2021	Various nominations discussed, but Feroz's nomination presented as the most notable, mentioned in title and intro	Yes	Yes
"Express Malayalam"	പികെ ഫിറോസ് സാഹിബ് ("PK Firoz Sahib")	Mar 2021	Short promotional spot	No	No
Mathrubhumi News	Minister KT Jaleel Flouted With Rules, Says PK Firos Mathrubhumi News	Nov 2018	Yes	Yes	Yes
Deshabhimani	ഒരു പികെ ഫിറോസ് വീര ശോക ഗാഥ PK Firoz KT Jaleel ("PK Feroz heroic tragedy")	Jul 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
Asianet News	Police enquiry against PK Firoz	Feb 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
Manorama News	ഫിറോസിനെ അപകീര്‍ത്തിപ്പെടുത്തുന്നു: 118എ പ്രകാരം പരാതിയുമായി ലീഗ് നേതാവ് P K Firoz ("Defamation of Feroz: League leader with complaint under 118A")	Nov 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
TikTok user?	Advt Pk firoz at shj international airport	Feb 2019	Someone spotted Feroz at Sharjah International Airport and decided to make a video of it?	No	probably not
Samayam (Times of India edition)	രാവിലെ അല്‍പ്പം നടത്തം, ഒപ്പം വോട്ട് പിടുത്തം pk firoz ('A little walk in the morning, and voting')	Mar 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
"kerala politics"	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQF05durpoM	Apr 2021	video from election campaign	No	?
Super Prime Time?	Pk Firos comedy	Mar 2021	Snippet from news show with PK Firos as commentator	N/A	Yes
Onmanorama	Mini Cooper 'rams' UDF now as photos show Congress leaders with Abu Lais	Nov 2017	PK Firos in photo and intro, but no in-depth info on him in article	Yes	Yes
New Indian Express	CM just repeating Minister Jaleel’s arguments: PK Firos	Dec 2018	Article in national newspaper dedicated to PK Firos' comment on Chief Minister's statement	Yes	Yes
Siraj Daily	പുറത്തറിഞ്ഞാൽ മാനക്കേടുണ്ടാകുമെന്ന് പലവട്ടം നേതാക്കളോട് പറഞ്ഞതാണ്; ഫണ്ട് തിരിമറി വിഷയത്തിൽ മുഈനലി തങ്ങൾ ("Leaders have been repeatedly told that it would be disgraceful to go out; Muinali Thangal on the issue of misappropriation of funds")	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Siraj Daily	നിക്ഷിപ്ത താത്പര്യങ്ങളുള്ള മാധ്യമപ്രവര്‍ത്തകര്‍ക്കും പി കെ ഫിറോസിനുമെതിരെ ആഞ്ഞടിച്ച് കെ കെ ഷാഹിന (KK Shahina lashes out at veteran journalists and PK Feroz)	Sep 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
Deshabhimani	എവിടെ ലീഗുണ്ടോ,  അവിടെ പിരിവുണ്ട്; വെട്ടിപ്പും ("Where there is a league, there is a gathering; And cutting"	Feb 2021	One passage dedicated to PK Firos defence on the Kathua-Unnao scandal	Yes	Yes
News18 India	ജലീൽ ഏറ്റവും കൂടുതൽ കള്ളം പറഞ്ഞ മന്ത്രി: പി.കെ. ഫിറോസ് ("Jalil most lied to minister: PK Feroz")	Apr 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Madhayam	മന്ത്രി ജലീൽ ഹൈകോടതിയെ സമീപിച്ചാൽ കക്ഷി ചേരുമെന്ന് പി.കെ. ഫിറോസ് ("If Minister Jalil approaches the High Court, PK Feroz will join the party")	Apr 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Madhayam	ജലീലിെൻറ മനോനില തെറ്റി –പി.കെ. ഫിറോസ് ("Jaleeli's mood swings - PK Feroz")	Apr 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Samayam (Times of India edition)	സംസ്ഥാനത്ത് ഇടത്- ബിജെപി രഹസ്യധാരണ വ്യക്തം, തുടർഭരണം നീക്കുപോക്കെന്നും പി കെ ഫിറോസ്; അഭിമുഖം കാണാം ("Left-BJP secret understanding clear in state, PK Feroz urges continuation of rule; Watch the interview")	Mar 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Samayam (Times of India edition)	കെ ടി ജലീലിനെതിരെ തുറന്നടിച്ച് പി കെ ഫിറോസ് ("PK Feroz openly attacked KT Jaleel")	Mar 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Asianet News	കത്വ ഫണ്ട് വിവാദം തുടരുന്നു; കണക്കുകളില്‍ വൈരുദ്ധ്യമെന്ന് ഐഎന്‍എല്‍, പണം നല്‍കിയതിന് തെളിവുമായി യൂത്ത് ലീഗ് ("Katwa fund controversy continues; INL, Youth League with evidence of discrepancies in figures")	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Asianet News	'കമറുദ്ദീൻ്റെ അറസ്റ്റ് ബിനീഷ് കോടിയേരി കേസിനെ പ്രതിരോധിക്കാൻ'; വിമര്‍ശിച്ച് പി കെ ഫിറോസ് ("'Kamaruddin's arrest to defend Bineesh Kodiyeri case'; PK Feroz criticizes")	Nov 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
Asianet News	Topic list for PK Firos		Feel free to review the rest of the articles	Yes	Yes
Manorama News	‘എത്രകാലം മൂടിവച്ചാലും സത്യം ജയിക്കും’; ജലീലിനെതിരായ വിധിയിൽ ഫിറോസ് ("‘No matter how long it is covered, the truth will prevail’; Feroz in the verdict against Jalil")	Apr 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Manorama News	പ്രവര്‍ത്തകരെല്ലാം പ്രചാരണത്തിന്; ആത്മവിശ്വാസത്തില്‍ പി.കെ.ഫിറോസ് ("All activists campaign; PK Firos in confidence")	Mar 2021	PK Firos interviewed on campaign trail	Yes	Yes
MediaOne TV	ജലീലിനെതിരായ നിയമ പോരാട്ടം തുടരുമെന്ന് പി കെ ഫിറോസ് ("PK Feroz says legal battle against Jalil will continue")	Apr 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Jansatta	केरल: गुरु पूर्णिमा पर मुस्लिम छात्रा ने पैर छूकर शिक्षक को किया प्रणाम, मुस्लिम संगठन ने जताया विरोध ("Kerala: Muslim student salutes teacher after touching his feet on Guru Purnima, Muslim organization protests")	Jul 2018	Half of article dedicated to comment by PK Firos on news story	Yes	Yes
IBC24	कठुआ पीड़िता के परिवार की मदद के लिए जमा कोष के गबन पर दो नेताओं के खिलाफ मामला दर्ज	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Navbharat Times	सीएए : केरल में यूथ लीग ने डाकघरों के सामने प्रदर्शन किया	Dec 2019	Report on protest led by PK Firos	Yes	Yes
Asiaville.in	CAA के ख़िलाफ़ देशभर में जारी है प्रदर्शन, सैकड़ों गिरफ़्तार, हज़ारों पुलिस बल तैनात	Dec 2019	Short report on protest led by PK Firos and his arrest	Yes	Yes
Deshabhimani	ഫിറോസേ.... അന്തസ്സില്ലെങ്കിൽ ആദരാഞ്ജലി അർപ്പിക്കാൻ നിൽക്കരുത്; അത് മരണപ്പെട്ടവരെ അധിക്ഷേപിക്കലാണ് ('Feroze .... don't stop to pay homage if you have no dignity; It is an insult to the dead')	Jul 2019	Opinion piece in CPI(M) organ against statement by PK Firos	opinion piece	Yes
Deshabhimani	'രാഹുല്‍ഗാന്ധിയുടെ മുതുമുത്തച്ഛന്‍ മഹാത്മാഗാന്ധി, രാജീവ്ഗാന്ധി കൊല്ലപ്പെട്ടത് കോയമ്പത്തൂരില്‍' യൂത്ത്‌ലീഗ് നേതാവിന്റെ 'ചരിത്രബോധം' വൈറല്‍)('Rahul Gandhi's grandfather Mahatma Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi assassinated in Coimbatore' Youth League leader's 'sense of history' goes viral")	Dec 2018	Yes	Yes	Yes
Deshabhimani	കത്വ-ഉന്നാവ്‌ ഫണ്ടില്‍ പി കെ ഫിറോസും നേതാക്കളും ഒരുകോടി വെട്ടിച്ചു; വെളിപ്പെടുത്തലുമായി യൂത്ത് ലീഗ് ദേശീയ നേതാവ് ("PK Feroz and leaders cut Rs 1 crore in Katwa-Unnao fund; Youth League national leader with revelation")	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Chandrika	ബന്ധം തെളിയിച്ചാല്‍ രാഷ്ട്രീയം അവസാനിപ്പിക്കും: പി.കെ ഫിറോസ് ("Politics will end if connection is proved: PK Feroz")	Oct 2017	Yes	Yes	IUML party organ
Chandrika	Links to coverage in Chandrika newspaper on PK Feroz			Yes	IUML party organ
Deepika	യൂത്ത് ലീഗ്: മുനവറലി ശിഹാബ് തങ്ങൾ പ്രസിഡന്റ്, പി.കെ.ഫിറോസ് ജനറൽ സെക്രട്ടറി ("Youth League: Munawarli Shihab Thangal President, PK Firoz General Secretary")	Dec 2016	Short report on PK Firoz being named MYL general secretary	Yes	Yes
Deepika	യൂത്ത് ലീഗ് മാർച്ചിൽ...	Jul 2020	Report on MYL protest, PK Firos arrested	Yes	Yes
Janayugom	കത്‌വ‑ഉന്നാവോ ഇരകള്‍ക്കായി പിരിച്ച ഫണ്ട് ദുരുപയോഗം ചെയ്തു; പി.കെ ഫിറോസിനെതിരെ യൂത്ത് ലീഗ് മുന്‍ നേതാവ് ("Katwa Unnao misappropriated funds Former Youth League leader against PK Feroz")	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Janayugom	കത്വ ഫണ്ട് തട്ടിപ്പ്; പി കെ ഫിറോസിനെതിരെ കേസെടുത്തു ("Katwa fund fraud; A case has been registered against PK Feroz")		Yes	Yes	Yes
Kerala Kaumudi	'രാഹുൽ ഗാന്ധിയുടെ മുതുമുത്തച്ചൻ മഹാത്മാ ഗാന്ധി': പ്രസംഗത്തിൽ അബദ്ധം പറഞ്ഞ് ലീഗ് നേതാവ് പി.കെ ഫിറോസ് ("Rahul Gandhi's grandfather, Mahatma Gandhi ': League leader PK Feroz makes a mistake in his speech")	Dec 2018	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mangalam	പിന്‍ വാതില്‍ നിയമങ്ങള്‍ക്കെതിരെ...	Feb 2021	Report on comment by PK Firos	Yes	Yes
Suprabhaatham Daily	പി.കെ ഫിറോസിന്റെ വാര്‍ഡില്‍ എല്‍.ഡി.എഫ്, പാര്‍ട്ടി നിര്‍ദേശം ലംഘിച്ച് മത്സരിച്ച കുന്ദമംഗലം പഞ്ചായത്ത് ലീഗ് പ്രസിഡണ്ട് വിമതനോട് തോറ്റു... ("Kundamangalam Panchayat League president Vimathan, who contested in PK Firos' ward in violation of LDF and party directives, lost")	Dec 2020	Article on panchayat election, making a point that IUML candidate lost in PK Firoz home ward	Yes	Yes
Suprabhaatham Daily	കരിപ്പൂര്‍: യൂത്ത് ലീഗ് പാര്‍ലമെന്റ് മാര്‍ച്ച് നടത്തുമെന്ന് പി കെ ഫിറോസ്... ("Karipur: PK Feroz said that the Youth League Parliament will hold a march")	Feb 2017	Article on statement by PK Firos	Yes	Yes
Vijaya Karnataka	ಎಂಎಸ್‌ಎಫ್‌ ಮುಖಂಡರ ಮೇಲೆ ಹಲ್ಲೆ: ಸಿಐ ಕಚೇರಿಗೆ ಎಂಎಸ್‌ಎಫ್‌,ಯೂತ್‌ ಲೀಗ್‌ನಿಂದ ಪ್ರತಿಭಟನಾ ಮೆರವಣಿಗೆ ("Attack on MSF leaders: Protest march by MSF, Youth League to CI office")	Mar 2017	Article on attack on MSF/MYL event, PK Firos interviewed	Yes	Yes
Ekushey Television	এবার অমিত শাহকে রুখতে অভিনব কৌশল ("This time it is a fancy strategy to stop Amit Shah")	Jan 2020	Short comment by PK Firos in end of article	Yes	Yes
Madhyamam	'യുവജന-വനിത-ദലിത് പ്രാതിനിധ്യം'; സ്ഥാനാർഥി പട്ടികയിൽ സംതൃപ്തിയെന്ന് പി.കെ ഫിറോസ് ("'Youth-Women-Dalit Representation'; PK Feroz says he is satisfied with the list of candidates")	Mar 2021	Article on statement by PK Firos	Yes	Yes
Mathrubhumi	യുവാക്കളോട് എന്നും ലീഗിന് നല്ല സമീപനം- പി.കെ. ഫിറോസ്... ("The league always has a good attitude towards the youth- P.K. Feroz")	Mar 2021	Interview with PK Firos on campaign trail	Yes	Yes
Malayala Manorama	പണപ്പിരിവ് വിഷയം മന്ത്രി ജലീലിന് ബൂമറാങ് ആയി: പി.കെ.ഫിറോസ് ("Fund-raising issue boomerangs for Minister Jaleel: PK Feroz")	Feb 2021	Article on statement by PK Firos, but also comments on past disputes between Firos and Jaleel	Yes	Yes
Thejas	കത് വ ഫണ്ട് തിരിമറി വിവാദം: പി കെ ഫിറോസ് വക്കീല്‍ നോട്ടീസ് അയച്ചു ("Katwa fund misappropriation controversy: PK Feroz lawyer sends notice")	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Siraj Daily	പി കെ ഫിറോസ്, നിങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് ഈ ഫിറോസിനെ പരിചയമുണ്ടോ? ("PK Feroz, are you familiar with this Feroze?")	Dec 2018	Comment on PK Feroze's faux-pas on his famous namesake...	Yes	Yes
Janam TV	വിദ്യാഭ്യാസ യോഗ്യത തിരുത്താന്‍ മന്ത്രി ഇടപെട്ടു: തെളിവുകളുമായി പി.കെ ഫിറോസ് ("Minister intervened to correct educational qualifications: PK Feroz with evidence")	Nov 2018	Article on statement of PK Firos	Yes	Yes
Dubai Vartha	യൂത്ത് ലീഗ് സംസ്ഥാന ജനറൽ...	Feb 2019	Announcement of public event in Sharjah	Yes	Yes
ETV Network	തവനൂരിലെ സിപിഎമ്മിനുള്ളിൽ കലാപക്കൊടി ഉയരുന്നതായി പി.കെ. ഫിറോസ് ("PK Firos says riot flag is rising inside CPM in Thavanur")	Mar 2021	Article on statement by PK Firos	Yes	Yes
Oneindia	പി കെ ഫിറോസ് ഇസ്ലാമിക വിരുദ്ധൻ, സംഘപരിവാറിന് ചുക്കാൻ പിടിക്കുന്നു, രൂക്ഷ വിമർശനവുമായി സമസ്ത... ("PK Feroz is anti-Islamic, takes the helm of the Sangh Parivar, Samastha with harsh criticism ...")	Mar 2021	Opinion piece (or commentary on opinion piece?) on PK Firos	Yes	Yes
Samayam (Times of India edition)	താനൂരില്‍ പികെ ഫിറോസ്? ചര്‍ച്ചകള്‍ സജീവം, ലീഗിന് അഭിമാന പോരാട്ടം ("PK Feroz in Tanur? Negotiations are active, a proud fight for the league")	Jan 2021	Discussion on the nomination process, affirms that the constituency is a prestige seat for IUML	Yes	Yes
Chandrika	ലോകായുക്തയുടെ കണ്ടെത്തല്‍; മന്ത്രി ജലീലിനെ ട്രോളി പികെ ഫിറോസ് ("Lokayukta's finding; Trolley PK Feroz to Minister Jaleel")	Apr 2021	Newspaper interviews PK Firos on court ruling	Yes	IUML organ
Express Kerala	ബന്ധുനിയമന കേസ്; കെ.ടി ജലീലിനെതിരായ ഹര്‍ജി പിന്‍വലിച്ച് പികെ ഫിറോസ് ("Kinship case; PK Feroz withdraws petition against KT Jaleel")	Jul 2019	Yes	?	Yes
Siraj Daily	ടോള്‍ഫ്രീ നമ്പറില്‍ മിസ്‌കോള്‍ അടിച്ചല്ല ലീഗില്‍ ചേര്‍ന്നതെന്ന് പികെ ഫിറോസ് ("PK Feroz says he did not join the league by hitting a missed call on the toll free number")	Apr 2016	Yes	Yes	Yes
Webdunia	‘ഉളുപ്പ് വേണം, ഉളുപ്പ്’; മുഖ്യമന്ത്രിയ്ക്കെതിരെ രൂക്ഷ വിമര്‍ശനവുമായി പികെ ഫിറോസ് ("‘Need guts, guts’; PK Feroz lashes out at CM")	Dec 2017	Article on comment by PK Firos	Yes	Yes
Siraj Daily	മന്ത്രി എംഎം മണിക്കെതിരെ പോലീസ് കേസെടുക്കാന്‍ തയ്യാറാവണം: പികെ ഫിറോസ് ("Police should be prepared to file a case against Minister MM Mani: PK Feroz")	Apr 2017	Article on statement by PK Firos	Yes	Yes
Samakalika Malayalam Vaarika	എംകെ രാഘവന്‍ പണം വാങ്ങിയെങ്കില്‍ അത് ബ്രോക്കറേജ് അല്ലേ; എങ്ങനെ അഴിമതിയാകുമെന്ന് പികെ ഫിറോസ് ("If MK Raghavan buys money, it is not brokerage; PK Feroz on how to be corrupt")	Apr 2017	Yes	Yes	Yes
Siasat Daily	Is opposition legislator’s arrest, political vendetta for CM Vijayan?	Nov 2020	Short comment by PK Firos	Yes	Yes
The Hindu	Firos trolled for calling Rahul Mahatma’s great-grandson	Dec 2018	Yes	Yes	Yes
The Hindu	Factions push hard for Sunni unity	Dec 2018	The article doesn't discuss PK Firos in depth, but affirms his role in leading youth march across the state: "The ongoing rally by Muslim Youth League leaders Panakkad Syed Munawwarali Shihab Thangal and P.K. Firos from Kasaragod to Thiruvananthapuram too has rubbed a section in the Chelari Samastha on the wrong side."	Yes	Yes
Times of India	Kathua-Unnao funds: Cops register case against MYL leaders	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Times of India	PK Firos levels nepotism charges against minister AK Balan	Feb 2019	Article on statement by PK Firos	Yes	Yes
Times of India	MYL joins issue in IUML-Samastha spat	Oct 2017	Article on statement by PK Firos	Yes	Yes
Times of India	Kanthapuram Sunni faction backs K T Jaleel	Sep 2020	Includes commentary on position of religious faction towards PK Firos: "The insinuation Muslim Youth League leader P K Firos made at the news conference on Monday against Kanthapuram has infuriated the Sunni group. “We don’t think that the reference against Kanthapuram is accidental. Firos was deliberately taking a dig at Kanthapuram,” said a source in the group. “Firos is not in the good books of the rival EK group of Sunnis. He had crossed swords with them on many issues, including the legal age for marriage of girls. Firos is now trying to appease the EK faction of Sunnis,” the source said." ([17] is another article on same matter)	Yes	Yes
New Indian Express	Kunhalikutty, ET Mohammed Basheer likely to continue as IUML candidates	Feb 2019	Reports discussion on fielding PK Firos as candidate in the 2019 Indian general election, and affirms that his stand against K.T. Jaleel had impact on public opinion	Yes	Yes
OnManorama	What is IUML's stake in Firos vs Jaleel battle	Feb 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
Oneindia	യൂത്ത് ലീഗ് പിടിക്കാന്‍ സമസ്തയിറങ്ങുന്നു; പക്ഷേ ഫിറോസിന് 'പകരക്കാരനെ' കിട്ടാന്‍ പെടാപ്പാട് ("Samastha goes down to capture Youth League; But Feroz is struggling to find a 'replacement'")	Aug 2016	Yes	Yes	Yes
Deccan Chronicle	IUML shrugs off Samastha protests; to field P K Firoz	Mar 2016	Yes - "A section among the clergy of Samastha is still on a campaign against Firoz, terming him as a traitor of Islamic belief."	Yes	Yes
Deccan Chronicle	It’s ladder war in Kunnamangalam	Apr 2016	"Moreover, IUML’s probable candidate P.K. Firos is facing strong protest from Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama, the prominent Sunni scholars’ body, after his opposition to lowering the marriageable age of Muslim girls and his Facebook post against holding processions during Milad-E Sharif."	Yes	Yes
Mathrubhumi	Sharia Law Reform: Samastha Against PK Firos's Stance	Jan 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
Kerala Kaumudi	P K Firoz instead of P K Kunjalikkutty in Malappuram? IUML to consider new strategies	Jan 2019	Brief discussion on PK Firos as potential Lok Sabha candidate	Yes	Yes
News18 India	പി കെ ഫിറോസും അഷ്‌റഫലിയും സമസ്തക്ക് കീഴടങ്ങിയോ, ചോദ്യമുയര്‍ത്തി സമൂഹമാധ്യമങ്ങള്‍ ("Social media has questioned whether PK Feroz and Ashraf Ali have surrendered to Samastha")	Jan 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
Deshabhimani	PK Firoz, Leaders Swindle Rs 1 Cr from Kathua-Unnao Fund; Not A Rupee Given To Victims, Says Youth League’s National Leader	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes
New Indian Express	P K Firoz alleges illegal postings in KIRTADS	Feb 2019	Article on statement by PK Firos	Yes	Yes
Greater Kashmir	Cops book two Muslim Youth League leaders for misappropriating funds for kin of Kathua rape victim	Feb 2021	Yes	Yes	Yes

I'd invite Bearcat, Kashmorwiki and DoubleGrazing to review the coverage on him. --Soman (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Significant coverage is that when a person does some notable work or a series of notable work over a period of years, independent media sources, such as newspapers, magazines etc, should provide detailed coverage about the subject in the form of biography article in detail talking about the subject, his life and his notable works. We would need these type of sources. As I can see there is nothing like that merits an article, even if combine all the sources. All of them are about some allegations, scams and controversies. I cannot say these all makes him pass GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 13:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Kashmorwiki - take [18] for example. This is clearly a) non-trivial mention - PK Firos is the main subject of the article (along with another IUML leader), b) reliable secondary source - IBC24 is a mainstream news outlet, c) independent from the subject - yup. There is absolutely no policy stating that only hagiographic works should be accepted in assessing WP:SIGCOV. A person who is the subject of multiple articles across multiple medias can definitely pass WP:GNG. --Soman (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: May be Beccaynr can analyse the sources better than anyone. They have rescued plenty of articles in the past. Pinging Beccaynr for an expert opinion. May be this will ger rescued. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 13:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Moreover, although I think we have plenty of examples of in-depth coverage on PK Firos, we can also note the following wording in Wikipedia:Notability (people) "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." --Soman (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Soman, or anyone participating in this discussion, per WP:BASIC and WP:PSTS, can you please identify WP:THREE sources that offer WP:SECONDARY context and/or commentary about Firos? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - User:RoySmith/Three best sources (WP:THREE) is a user space essay, not a policy. By capping SIGCOV at three, it effectively contradicts the very spirit of WP:BASIC and Notability (people) (quoted above, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."). That said, I'd say all the links about marked as non-trivial mentions, in reliable source and independent from subject may qualify. I'd say [19], [20], [21] would be a good start. --Soman (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I know it is WP:ONLYESSAY, and my purpose in referencing it is in the context of this discussion, e.g. That guy wants to help me get the article kept. I am hoping that you or someone else can point to WP:SECONDARY coverage that contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources, because per WP:PSTS, Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. The first source does not appear to have much depth - it mentions allegations, that they are denied, and that Firoz has a lawyer, and this is reported in the context of an election. The second source (translated title: Case filed against two leaders for embezzling deposit funds to help Kathua victim's family) appears to be a video that I cannot access, but based on the title, may be routine reporting, similar to the third source. My own research has not turned up secondary coverage, but it has been a more limited review than what has been documented above. Beccaynr (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - sometimes we have to see the forest, in spite of the trees. We have here an article subject who has been involved in multiple affairs, scandals and legal disputes, around which all major news outlets have coverage. His election campaign has high profile, and receives plenty of coverage across multiple news outlets. When he visits a football game, it is reported by major news outlets. When he comments on an issue, it is reported in major news outlets. He is a frequent participant in news broadcasts, commenting on a variety of issues. His notability is clearly not linked to a single event, but is effectively a prominent public personality. To be clear, if the article subject was American or British we wouldn't have had this conversation. --Soman (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - When he visits a football game, it is reported by major news outlets; these type of things are just routine coverage. If a politician sneeze or cough these days, may be some newspapers would report that! Thats the current scenario. We cannot have an article for a person who is getting routine or incidentil coverage. And its not him alone, who is a frequent participant in news broadcasts. Even some local politicians do that. Do we have an article for all of them? Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just a quick note. WP:ROUTINE is a notability guideline for events not individuals. If a person is repeatedly covered in media, hundreds of times across platforms and topics, the person is sufficiently notable to warrant a standalone wikipedia article. The coverage doesn't need to be extraordinary or hagiographic. And yes, if "some local politicians" have this degree of notability, they should have standalone articles. WP:GNG is based on the notion that "[a] topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,". --Soman (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot find any single thing to claim the notability of this subject. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my limited experience building source assessment tables, I try to focus on the strongest sources with the most significant, in-depth and secondary coverage, because as noted above, this is needed to establish notability per the guidelines. I am also careful with the Times of India per WP:TOI, especially for politics, because The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. I have asked for and looked for secondary coverage of Firoz, but none appears to have been produced and I have not been able to locate any. Firoz does not appear to meet WP:NPOL, because that guideline states in a footnote, A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists, and without sufficient sources to establish WP:NPOL and limited secondary coverage found to establish his notability as a politician per WP:BASIC, (such as this), I do not see a basis for this article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but in what way does WP:TOI play a role here? Is there any claim done here that has been challenged as factually incorrect? --Soman (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - By my quick count, there appear to be ten TOI sources listed in the source table. Per WP:BASIC, People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject. (emphasis added). And per WP:RS, Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. The Times of India sources therefore do not seem to be a significant support for notability per the relevant guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was unaware of WP:TOI, and somewhat perplexed by it. I know ToI as one of the main national newspapers in India, and it is hardly the The Sun. From their Wikipedia article there are concerns on paid news, but that hardly applies in this scenario. Are there are any claims whatsoever in this discussion that you feel are unreliable or outlandish? --Soman (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - From my view, it is not a question of any particular claim in this discussion, it is whether the source can be used to support notability per Wikipedia guidelines, and based on my experience and WP:TOI, TOI does not appear to be a significant support. Beccaynr (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
not delete he is currently strong and popular political leader in Kerala politics from right side UDF and ( Indian Union Muslim League

I strong support this article for Indian Politician Because He is already serving General Secretary of Indian Muslim Youth League organization, and he also Lawyer, Social worker and Founder Of White Guard Volunteers (Kerala India) in Kerala,affiliation of Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/cpm-flouting-norms-in-appointing-cu-staff-p-k-firos/articleshow/78268378.cms he also UDF Candidate in Constituency of Tanur ( Kerala Legislative Assembly ) election result coming May 2nd 2021, https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2019/feb/12/p-k-firoz-alleges-illegal-postings-in-kirtads-1937530.html

https://dubaivartha.com/2019/02/youth-league-general-secretary-in-sharjah/

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/cm-pinarayi-accountable-pk-firos-whose-allegation-led-minister-jaleel-s-resignation-147080

https://www.mathrubhumi.com/mobile/news/kerala/p-k-firos-against-k-t-jaleel-1.5590630

https://m.timesofindia.com/city/thiruvananthapuram/the-minister-who-courted-a-series-of-controversies/articleshow/82055421.cms

User:Msp7com 06:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Msp7com, please stop your REFBOMBING and as a creator of this page, reply to the issues shown by others. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what a mess. Bearcat's assessment is spot on. Kudos also to DoubleGrazing to making me smile. And more kudos to Beccaynr for their source assessment. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kichu🐘

I do not have a problem without knowledge of this article. PK Firos is a member of a well-known political party in India ( Indian Union Muslim League ) and a prominent politician and General Secretary of the Indian Muslim Youth League. He is also a member of the main opposition party ( UDF )in the Indian state of Kerala, in a democratic manner against the LDF, the ruling party of Kerala He is also the leader of the agitation, April 6, 2021 In the last Kerala Assembly Elections, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) contested the much-discussed Tanur constituency in Kerala.The result is due on May 2, 2021, and if he wins, it will be in Wikipedia Notable. It is hoped that this article will continue to be Without deleting until the policy is received by the eligible MLA office. Let's go, enable the Wikipedia notable label I request that his work be considered in this Wikipedia deletion discussion with the status of Lawyer User:Msp7com 16 April 2021 12:19 (UTC)

Delete Per Bearcat's assessment of sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete I see you again The person mentioned in this article The following By 4 things Wikipedia Notable seems to be eligible in the people category

1. Known in India He is the general secretary of a youth organization (Indian Muslim Youth League
2. This person is a well known politician in the Indian state of Kerala who sits in opposition UDF|and constantly controls the ruling party in a democratic manner.
3. He is a lawyer.

4. . He is also a member of a legally registered party ( Indian Union Muslim League) He is contesting for the Kerala Legislative Assembly and is awaiting the result The result will come on May 2, 2021.

I do not agree with deleting this article for the above reasons This can be discussed further, or Article improvement can be made on the basis of the reference already given to the article Continue to thank those who participated in the discussion ☕️ User:Msp7com 01:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to the lack of discussion of the proposed new sources. Given this, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination for evaluation of these. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blow My Mind (Davido and Chris Brown song)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSONG. versacespace talk to me 03:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. versacespace talk to me 03:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Good Time, the parent album where it is already discussed. sources found discuss the video in more detail. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 18:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This song is already covered on the album page A Good Time Agree that this particular song does not meet notabliltiy per WP:NSONGS. Redoryxx (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I changed my vote per sources below. Hot new hip hop and the guardian.ng ar reliable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Aside from a few sources about its video and being a Top 5 on Billboard's Top Triller Global chart, I found some reliable sources (some from local media) which talk about the album: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] and [29]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSINGLE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional sources uncovered.

Note: https://onobello.com/davidos-risky-blow-my-mind-a-good-time-earn-multiple-platinum-certification/ in the last !vote is a generally unreliable source.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song reached the top 3 in the Billboard chart. And stayed on the chart for 9 weeks. The article is also covered by two not contested sources: Africa News and Periodico Daily. Meets WP:NSINGLE. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Log entry:

2021-04-07T11:55:53 Deb (talk | contribs) deleted page Aperture 2. 0: Basic Skills of Photography (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aperture 2. 0: Basic Skills of Photography) (thank)

(non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aperture 2. 0: Basic Skills of Photography[edit]

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

Lacks all notability (both the article, and available sourcing online). There's no speedy deletion criterion for books (should be the equivalent of A9 music recordings), but this one is an example of why we perhaps needs such a rule. Fram (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to speedy it as it's obviously promotional. Deb (talk) 11:55, 7 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heels and Sneakers[edit]

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

Non-notable TV series. Fail of WP:NMEDIA Nearlyevil665 (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because a TV series existed does not mean it is default notable. That is the place we would have to cut off notability to find this to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 13 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolga Tanriseven[edit]

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

Related article was deleted two years ago. Not notable, reads promotional, sources are likely paid coverage. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 11:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 11:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 11:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 11:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources provided in the article only mention the subject as the founder of the GirlsAskGuys - there's no significant coverage on the subject himself, therefore he fails WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 12:25, 7 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 12:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. George High School, Chempanthotty[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. There is no WP:SIGCOV: the only few source mentions are non-independent (adverts or listings) (see UniForm, School employment details, Schools in India and icbse). The externally linked school website (sghs.chempanthotty.com) no longer exists (last archive). Based on this, and the lack of any other coverage, the school likely fails WP:N. Mxtt.prior (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL + WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can tell there's zero out there about this that would make it notable. There isn't even the usual trivial news stories about it that most high schools out there have. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:08, 11 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 12:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Mourão[edit]

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

Very poorly written article. There are some references but the references are passing mentions failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC. An artist if notable enough, there should have been more references in the time of half a century. The article is not eligible for being considered as standalone article. There are some exceptional claim like "he has been known to host parties and surround himself with famous people, like Pablo Picasso,[1] Salvador Dalí, The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin." without any credible source. Apart from my objection about the subject's notability, tone of the article, notability is not inherited. Chirota (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is possible that he generated enough coverage in the 80s to be notable; finding that coverage is another issue. I cleaned up the article a bit, but it is still a GNG fail. --- Possibly (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up anywhere near enough to meet WP:GNG, and nothing indicates he passes WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS. The artists' own website doesn't have any evidence that he passese NARTIST either. And both are very PROMO. Theredproject (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 08:09, 13 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 02:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global K-pop[edit]

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

Seems like a product of WP:FANCRUFT and holds close to no encyclopedic value at all. Many of the article's contents have also been covered in the main article, K-pop, to some extent (it is almost the whole basis of the "Popularity and impact" section. Article also has many, many issues. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 10:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article seems well-sourced, I think it was an off-shoot of the main Kpop article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (seriously, still, does that mean "what you said"?). AdoTang (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main K-pop is more thorough in describing the international influence and influencing effect of K-pop, but this article seems to have cherry-picked all the cruftiest parts and doesn't add encyclopedic content. It's possible that it was created as a content fork to support the original creator's other article Areia Creations Global Entertainment but likely got filled-in by well-meaning folks over time and might need a spot-check for any decent facts to merge. Personally, I feel like the subject could warrant a page, but this is TNT-level inadequate. Estheim (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking back through the article history I came to much the same conclusion. It's all based upon a single company's marketing claim (Special:Permalink/596025896), and at certain points in the article's history that was even taken out, leaving no basis at all. Uncle G (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Korean Pop and add a paragraph about it there. It doesn't need whole page. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Global K-Pop is a notable subgenre of its own. There is so much content that merging would be completely impractical, and deleting would only be detrimental to readers. Leguminously (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:A7 (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Sagar[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it fails WP:GNG and WP:PERSON. This article seems to be promotional because a YouTube channel can't be an encyclopaedic article. If it can be, then it will be a means of promotion. The YouTuber has not made any notable works or got notable awards. Also, the article is unsourced. As the article doesn't meet notability criteria and have any significance of the subject, this article should be deleted. A.A Prinon (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a discussion. I'll speedy it. Deb (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sreepuram[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. There is no WP:SIGCOV: the only few source mentions are non-independent (adverts or listings) (see Careers 360 icbse) and the school's website which is a primary source (Sreepuram). Based on this, and the lack of any other coverage, the school likely fails WP:N.

Furthermore, the current page reads as an advert and the majority of the page just states the number of times the school was viewed on a review website ("...rated by 7 people on iCBSE", "...viewed 951 times by the visitors on iCBSE"). It is worth noting the majority of the content in this article was copy-pasted from the school website in 2013, and then removed (diff from 2013). Mxtt.prior (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Also, the current content of the page attempts to advertise the school in a very blatant manner. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment and update: it also appears the article was nominated for WP:CSD under WP:A1 for not meeting the requirements for a WP:STB in 2009. I can't tell what the outcome was. (see this talk page notice) Mxtt.prior (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I will say speedy delete. Purely written for promotional purpose. I still wonder why it was not deleted under CSD. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion explicitly does not cover this, in boldface. Uncle G (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That should really be changed now that high schools are not inherently notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same thing. If anyone asks why educational institutions need to be speediable, just show them this! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt This has had quite a 'colourful' history incl. two earlier deletions, so if this AfD results in third, probably worth protecting as well. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt I totally agree with everyone else about this. The article is completely ridiculous and there's zero way to make it a quality article that would pass even the lowest notability bars because the sourcing just isn't there for it to. So, clearly, the article should be deleted. I'm also strongly on the side of salting it so it's not just uselessly recreated and sent back through the AfD process again. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:20, 12 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) 19:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Milwaukee County Transit System bus routes[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR and not encyclopedic. No indication anywhere that these are notable routes and neither is the group as a set. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Last I checked we weren't a brochure and this list helps no one except those travelling in the area who want to know which bus to catch. There's nothing encyclopedic about bus routes. Fails NOTDIR and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 11:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given Athel cb (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AdoTang (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic per WP:NOTDIR. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. Could be kept if and only if each of these routes have independent notability in their own right. Currently there is barely any independent notability of any route. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 13:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milwaukee County Transit System bus fleet, which was created by the same author. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 13:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one source in the article isn't using a source from the transit system's website...which I would always go to rather than a Wikipedia article that always is subject to be out of date day-to-day. NOTDIR. Nate • (chatter) 21:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into parent article The article is very dense, especially the description of former bus routes, but with trims made, this should be placed back into the parent article. This isn't the only transit system Wikipedia article that has a table of its bus routes. It's not notable enough to stand on its own, so it should be merged back. Albeit the sources are predominantly from one place, the transit system is currently going through a redesign, which has numerous citations. This article, along with the list of its fleet, were recently forked because they were too dense in the parent article. As long as this article is trimmed, it should be moved back into its parent.Jacobi Jackson (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was forked without consensus by one editor; I see nothing on the MCTS page about splitting this out, nor any opinion the article was 'too dense'. I'm tired of re-merges under the argument of 'it's too much for the main article'. If it's 'too much' for the main article, learn to write more succinctly so it never becomes an issue. Nate • (chatter) 04:55, 12 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cavemen (songwriters)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage dedicated to this duo. The only currently cited source is primary and merely a list of works. They could possibly meet criterium 1 of WP:COMPOSER ("Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition."), as they're credited for co-producing notable albums such as Arular, though I'm not sure whether producing counts here. But even then, the lack of coverage means there is insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. The little content this article has is already mostly present in the articles of Cavemen's individual members. Lennart97 (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator on all counts, I was also unable to find independent, reliable coverage. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:23, 9 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Max on the Rox[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND; I can't find any significant coverage of this group, and the Finnish version is an unsourced stub too. The article was first nominated back in 2006, the outcome of which was no consensus. The only indication of notability appears to be the band's one notable member Kai Hahto, so I suggest redirecting this article to Kai Hahto, and adding a (preferably sourced) mention of the band in the main text of that article, in addition to its mention in the discography section. Lennart97 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is really just worth one passing mention on Kai Hahto's page. AdoTang (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 7 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavnagar Management Programme[edit]

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

Unreferenced. About non-notable education program. Nizil (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. not even mentioned in the university's article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) nearlyevil 665 05:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mizter Okyere[edit]

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

Non-notable musician with no multiple secondary references to support notability. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 05:58, 7 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, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, He has been nominated for a major music award in his country [30], [31].-Xclusivzik (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes criteria 8 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) for winning an award at Ghana's major music awards so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:20, 15 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 12:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Honold[edit]

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

A non-notable "almost-was-a-politician" that lost a race for Governor. No notable sources found online to establish any sort of notability. Fails WP:BIO, fails WP:NPOL. Megtetg34 (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This falls below the threshold of notability. BD2412 T 05:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though I have found quite a few mentions in the media, all of them are passing and refer to him as a former mayor. There's no significant coverage, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Less Unless (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mayors aren't presumptively notable under WP:NPOL, and the news coverage appears to be too trivial to permit a GNG pass. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has not held any political office that would confer an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL, and the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to actually get him over the much higher bar that local politicians actually have to clear. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although Google search returned results, subject is not notable as per WP:NBIO nor WP:NPOL as he has not actually hold political office. Roulisegee (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC) — Roulisegee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Hines[edit]

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

No independent verifiable sources to establish notability. Article reads like a job description. Just because he's a communications manager for Bethesda certainly does not warrant inclusion into an encyclopedia. Utterly fails WP:BIO. Megtetg34 (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting any notability guideline. Perhaps they will go far in the future and reach an encyclopedic level of notability, but they are not there yet. BD2412 T 05:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what BD2412 said. AdoTang (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 07:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles W. Heyl[edit]

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

Zero evidence of notability. Not only was there none found in any sources... there is literally nothing notable even listed in the article. As far as I can see, this was "just some guy". Megtetg34 (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Withdraw Megtetg34 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he served as a member of the Wisconsin State Assembly and therefore passes WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra, I totally missed that. Do I need to revert my nom? Or, will an admin just close it out as a keep?

@Megtetg34: if you just leave it an admin will close it as keep after seven days. What you can do is strike through your nomination and add (bold) 'Withdraw' so it can be closed right away. All the best Mccapra (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: Thanks! Megtetg34 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPOL as a former member of the Wisconsin State Assembly. See [32] and [33]. MarkZusab (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Meets WP:NPOL. This article needs major work and attention, but not to be deleted.--JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 19:04, 7 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) 19:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Guimard[edit]

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

No evidence of notability found anywhere. Megtetg34 (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's authored a few books, that seem like self-published/do it yourself publications. I can't find anything in French to show notability, she's just a long-term employee in the financial world. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but Investor Relations: Principles and International Best Practices of Financial Communications, is published by Palgrave Macmillan hardly self published, incidently held in around 200 libraries. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for your comment. The article covers her work history portraying her as a business person, which does not meet notability requirements. See WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. While the book is available in certain libraries, I haven't found enough sources to constitute WP:BOOKCRIT, which would be a page independent of her. I'm going to let the nom stand because I still don't think there's enough to merit a page on her own. Megtetg34 (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswomen. Just because you get someone else to publish a book you wrote does not mean you are automatically notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 14 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. BD2412 T 02:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inderprastha Engineering College[edit]

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

Fails NSCHOOLS. No RS found except for the mundane press releases, primary sources and paid advertisement. Vikram Vincent 03:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 03:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 03:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 03:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[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, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-03 ITS Engineering College ✗ delete

Delete - I could not find anything beyond the usual database profiles like this; WP:ORGDEPTH not demonstrated Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 15 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Tech Institute of Engineering & Technology[edit]

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

Has not cited any sources since 2011. No RS available except for press releases, paid advertisement, primary sources. Fails NSCHOOLS. creator is an SPA with just one edit. Vikram Vincent 03:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 03:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 03:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 03:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 03:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 03:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 14:34, 7 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 Open Source Initiative. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Fogel[edit]

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

Another non-notable business person that was originally deleted and made its way back onto Wikipedia. Stub has been active for several years without an ounce of notability or new sources.Megtetg34 (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Open Source Initiative where he is mentioned, as an WP:ATD. I would also fully protect the redirect to stop article creation. Other option would be to delete and salt, but the redirect has some value. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree with the re-direct, the things he's done seem more important than himself. The sources here are all about things he's done, not about him. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 7 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) 19:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C Sharp in Depth[edit]

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

Book of debatable notability. Spherical Cassowary (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see why this book is notable. Cinadon36 04:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a nice, interesting and entirely non-notable book. Horrible article, shameless promotion (inline external links). If there are other book reviews (I mean real reviews), feel free to mention them and I will change my mind. Pavlor (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a totally non-notable manual on using a particular programming language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 13 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 Jo Coburn. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Flanagan (communications)[edit]

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

Nothing to show WP:GNG. Article reads like a resume and a puff piece. Megtetg34 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jo Coburn for being her husband. Thanks and don't bite me, DePlume (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't even think he's important enough for a re-direct, just a communications veteran, along with countless others in the same job. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jo Coburn: Per WP:INHERIT. Barely found anything about him. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 8 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Fairman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not really sure what's going on here. When I nominated it for AFD, it took me to an old AFD discussion where the result was delete so I assume it was deleted. Nevertheless, here the article is again with no sources to establish notability. Megtetg34 (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential G4. Do you remember its past content? Thanks and don't bite me, DePlume (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its past content can be found to the right of the page in the first deletion discussion. Have a look. Megtetg34 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient sourcing, and a Google search doesn't turn up very much else. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt fails WP:GNG, not notable, and repeatedly recreated. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Not notable. Salt because the article with the same name has been created many many times. Mohammad (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've declined the G4 speedy deletion because it's different enough from the original version, with more references. No comment on the validity of those references or on notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly prmotional article on a businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 14 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Murphy[edit]

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

Municipal politician fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 01:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. A mayor of a city with over 100,000 people is notable. Has sufficient news coverage from upi.com, latimes.com, eastbaytimes.com, laobserved.com, pasadenaweekly.com, and colonytheatre.org. also has 2 awards listed. SWP13 (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. She hasn't received enough press coverage. Doesn't matter if she is the mayor of a city of 100,000 people or 200,000 people. See WP:NPOL bullet 2: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Megtetg34 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there is a consensus that the subject is not notable, the article should be redirected to Burbank, California#List of mayors as a reasonable alternative to deletion. I express no opinion as to notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can actually improve the article. Regardless of the size of city involved, the notability test for mayors is never just the ability to offer technical verification of her election to the office in and of itself — getting a mayor over WP:NPOL #2 requires you to write and reliably source some genuine substance about her political impact, such as specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects she had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. For starters, Burbank is a council-manager city with a weak mayor system — which means the mayoralty is not directly elected by the voters, but instead the position simply rotates annually among the city councillors and confers little to no actual executive authority beyond chairing the council meetings. The notability test for mayors is not the ability to offer verification and reverification and rereverification of her existence as a mayor, or the ability to locate the names of her husband and kids — the notability test is the ability to write and source a detailed and substantial article that demonstrates her political importance, which is not a description of this article in this form. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Originally closed as delete, subsequent discussion has suggested this person might qualify under NPOL. There has been extensive discussion and still no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhu Joy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Politician who was never elected as an MP or MLA. Just being the leader of some political party does not make anyone notable. Fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies criteria ~~#6 and #9~~ of WP:POLITICIAN, specifically Member of Parliament(MP) elections from Ernakulam and there is sufficient coverage in WP:RS outside their local area of influence as can be seen in sources in the reference section. For notability any one criteria is required. Vikram Vincent 07:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I found this link which seems to have a lot more references on the subject. Don't forget to ignore the YouTube videos and no RS links :-) Vikram Vincent 08:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment:Vincentvikram, For your knowledge, this person had never been elected as a member of parilament. She lost to K. V. Thomas in 2009.[34]] The article also fails to establish the importance of the subject. Other than being the leader of a political party, I cannot find anything else. And regarding the sources you found out, it seems like just a case of WP:REFBOMB.Regards.Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 09:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just searching for the page where I saw the criteria list so striking the numbers for the moment. Yes, I agree that the subject lost the elections but she did compete on the national level since MP elections are national level. However, I'll stick with the point on notability via multiple RS outside her local area of influence and let other editors draw their own conclusions. best! Vikram Vincent 09:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram Thankyou for you valid contribution here. The point is, participating in the election does not alone make anyone notable by virtue of it. The sources presented here are mainly covering about the incidents or controversial events that she has been involved with. I could not find anything else that makes her pass WP:GNG. I still repeat, this might be a case of WP:REFBOMB. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 09:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki Having struck out my above link, if we only consider the 11 references in the article, refbomb won't be valid anymore :-) Vikram Vincent 09:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram, you may see this discussion [35] and have a look at the point given by user Bearcat. Almost similiar the situation in this case too. The fact is Bindu Krishna has more coverage than this person. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 10:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point you are making Kashmorwiki. The article on Bindu has only two references. This has 11-1=10 references in RS. I think it is better other editors comment rather than a back and forth between us :-) best! Vikram Vincent 10:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes only two sources are present in the article. But Im saying about the sources not given in the article. Anyway, like you said, let others decide. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 11:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the current 18 sources in the reference list, subject passes WP:GNG which is the basic guideline required for notability. WP:NPOL is applied only when notability is not found via GNG and these are specifically carved criteria. Vikram Vincent 09:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we combine these 18 sources, it fails to give sigcov which is one of the primary factor needed for establishing notability thus failing WP:GNG. I would like to also mention WP:REFBOMB here.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how a refbomb claim is relevant to 18 sources. Anyway a back and forth between you and me is not productive unless some new claims can be made else it just becomes walls of text. Best! Vikram Vincent 10:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL, including because based on the sources that were in the article and sources I have added to the article, following her 2006 and 2009 candidacies, Joy continued to receive news coverage in 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2016 for various aspects of her political career. In addition, her career in television has been reported on, with reference to her role as a politician, as well as biographical information. Beccaynr (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment fyi, the AfD template has recently been removed from this article twice, and there have been recent changes to the article made by several editors. Beccaynr (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Given what has happened to this article, I also ask that anyone assessing notability consider the sources that were available at this point: diff. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I reverted to last stable version and requested temp page protection. Vikram Vincent 06:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't see her meeting WP:NPOL having never been elected to a high position, and I don't see the depth-of-coverage required for WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:GNG, the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Drajay1976 (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The person has been covered in reliable sources. So notable enough. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable figure in Kerala politics for more than a decade, multi-year coverage in RS; passes the GNG.--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notabilty clear as per reasons above. Unclear why she is being nominated.Kaybeesquared (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment [36] news sources are not enough to establish notability. The subject fails NPOL, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:NACADEMIC. It is common for news media to cover everything or every single event associated with politics. When it comes to "public speaker, writer, columnist, academician and social activist ", the subject again fails to satisfy relevant notability criteria.

Claims made in article are;

"...is a politician" (unfortunately, she hasn't won any assembly or parliamentary election and "no representation to the federal, state/provincial offices")
"...is a public speaker" (please compare this with Sandeep Maheshwari, Shiv Khera).
"...is a writer" (no notable publications, awards or any major contribution).
"...is an academician" (no research, no awards, hasn't made any contribution to scholarly society or association.
"...is a social activist" (never participated in a notable movement)
"...is a columnist" (no notable work).

Article says:

"...was the All India Vice-President of Students' Federation of India and the president of SFI Kerala State committee for three years. She is the only woman to hold such a senior level position in the organisation."

Source says:

"Sindhu Joy (Kerala), Sayandeep Mitra (West Bengal), P Biju (Kerala) and Nirmal Biswas (Tripura) were elected as the vice presidents."[37] At that time, the organisation had 4 vice-presidents at state-level, including the subject in question. She received news coverage when she resigned from the party, hence it appears routine coverage and a press release.[38]. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

commentTheBirdsShedTears It might be good to verify the claims that you are making: The subject was a leader in the student movement in Kerala, which would make her an activist. Her primary notability comes from here and is supported by WP:RS. The statement She is the only woman to hold such a senior level position in the organisation is in respect to holding the position of SFI state president in Kerala since that is fiercely contested post. Vikram Vincent 07:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram, holding the position of state president of the youth wing of party irrespective of the way it was contested (you said fiercely contested) does not make anyone notable by our current policies. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 08:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki in my above comment I have only contested the claim, never participated in a notable movement, which is factually false. I'm not reiterating my point regarding notability. But considering that a single State in India is bigger than some countries, some of the policies will have to reexamined. PS: I even !voted keep for Surendran on grounds of parity. Vikram Vincent 09:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram, I also questioned one of your claims right.? Your argument about being the leader of the youth wing of a party :) And in the case of Surendran, he is the head of the party itself and has recieved coverage from lot of sources (even though I dont agree with him getting enough sigcov). But here, Im afraid the subject has recieved any sigcov rather than trivial coverage. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we are interpreting GNG slightly differently it seems and that is fine. I'm happy to agree to disagree :-) Vikram Vincent 10:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram, as i earlier mentioned, "...is a social activist" (never participated in a notable movement). Being a leader in the student non-notable movement doesn't satisfy notability. However, participating in a historical movement or such activities that has been a subject of discuss in multiple RS is notable. Please compare this to Ambujammal, Annai E. V. R. Nagammai or Ela Bhatt. You may refer to WP:BASIC for a comprehensive detail on notability. False claims with no regard of GEN, ANYBIO, or BASIC should be speedy deleted under A7. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheBirdsShedTears The subject is a political activist and not a social activist. Also the people you have quoted are from a different time period and it would be inappropriate to compare incomparables. The activism in Kerala is unlike that in other parts of the India due to its historic development and hence if we were to compare it to contemporary student movements across the country then the impact of the Kerala student movement is at a higher level in terms of its impact on government policy and also the number of politicians it generates across the political spectrum. Having said that, the question is not whether the movement was notable but whether the subject is notable. Further, I don't think any of the seasoned editors here will put their head out for A7 as AFD is the best place. Vikram Vincent 15:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram, a political activist with no involvement/participation/engagement in any notable activity is a clear indication of A7. Article's current revision claims .... is a former politician which is questionable to pass NPOL. Would you explain "she is a former politician"?. She has never elected, appointed or otherwise selected to any office such as MLC, MLA, MP or equivalent. The subject's participation in election doesn't satisfy NPOL. However, if a presidential candidate or equivalent participates in election, they are presumed notable even they lost election. In general, i disagree with your claims. She is non-notable in my opinion. Would you please provide a few of articles here for comparison with the article in question? I tried but failed to find such articles on Wikipedia. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheBirdsShedTears both of us have already expressed our opinions. If you want to try your luck with an A7 go ahead. Best! Vikram Vincent 17:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram, please provide a few of similar pages (at least one page) for comparison as i failed to find the same. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheBirdsShedTears I made changes to the page to reflect the current status of the subject. We don't delete a page when a person dies or retires. Apart from routine maintenance, we just stop updating it once the coverage stops. I'm sorry but I don't have either the time or the interest in looking up examples. Vikram Vincent 18:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram, the fact is that we don't have such articles on English Wikipedia. Please don't take this personally as i am trying to make it clear that how Wikipedia works. I have also added a reference from The Hindu, however, i am still worried about its notability. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Short of being a party chairperson, treasurer, or executive director, we have almost never kept an article on a party functionary that I can recall. General secretaries, youth leaders, rapporteurs, and the like are run of the mill. Zero evidence she passes WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR as alleged. I found no social media following, zero articles from newspapers of record, and only a new scholarly articles that mention her. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 09:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES, and per Bearian's arguement above. Further: a person doesnt fulfil WP:NPOL if they have high designation in party, but not elected. It is commonly accepted that if a politician fails NPOL, then they have to pass WP:GNG with high standards, as high ranking party members are bound to be mentioned in press but it doesnt make that significant coverage. The subject here fails standard GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role, and this seems like an example of coverage beyond the scope of what would otherwise be expected:

Season of suspense and surprises in Kerala, The Indian Express, 2011

There seems to be no end to the suspense, surprises and heartburn in Kerala even after the campaign for the April 13 assembly polls moved to top gear with filing of nominations closing by the week-end.

Never before has Kerala witnessed such poll-eve shift of loyalties as last week with a fiery CPI(M) student leader crossing over to Congress [...] One striking image of the LDF campaign in 2006 was that of SFI leader Sindhu Joy leading a student agitation on crutches after she was injured, allegedly in a police lathicharge.

The LDF had projected her as the symbol of the UDF government's use of force to suppress students' stir against privatisation of the education sector and CPI(M) pitted her against Congress leader and then Chief Minister Oommen Chandy in the assembly polls. She also unsuccessfully contested the Ernakulam Lok Sabha seat in 2009 against Union Minister K V Thomas.

The 'poster girl' of CPI(M) sprang a surprise last week by quitting the party and joining the Congress. A national vice-president of CPI-M's student outfit SFI, Sindhu said she was deeply disappointed with CPI(M), whose bosses had 'neglected' her over the last several months. Her first act after deserting CPI(M) was to canvass support for Chandy in his pocket borough Puthupally, where she went hammer and tongs against him five years back.

Seeking to play down Sindu's switch over,CPI(M) dismissed her from the party the very moment she announced her decision to part ways with the Left and join the UDF campaign.

She is now in great demand by UDF contestants all over the state, who think that a young woman like Sindhu could defuse LDF's claim of being the passionate defenders of women's rights and privileges. "We will certainly make use of her services to the maximum. She is an energetic person, an eloquent speaker and it was out of conviction that she quit CPI (M) and joined Congress," a Congress leader from Kottayam said.

[...] Interestingly, after parting ways with CPI-M, Sindhu Joy also said she was a believer but she had refrained from going to church for prayers, fearing it would antagonise party bosses.

Beccaynr (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Strong delete – Note: I have already a "Delete" vote in my first participation.[39] the article was nominated for AfD on 4 March. Five days later i.e on 9 March, the subject wrote Any Wikipedia volunteers here?? on their official Facebook page[40]. A user "Ajay Balachandran" subsequently replies to the query I am a volunteer, what's the issue. The subject replies to the user's comment check your inbox, which makes me suspicious about article's AfD discussion. I think A major contributor (IP users) to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. AfD tag was removed multiple times by IP users. This article is possibly a self promotional with undisclosed paid editing. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please go and strike that !vote out. Vikram Vincent 10:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:LIKELYVIOLATION, Wikipedia has remedies in place to tackle its policy violation issues. Vandals, sock puppets, and edit warriors can be blocked. Articles can be protected. Sock puppets and canvassers can be traced, and issues such as page protection and the repeated removals of the AfD template have been addressed. Beccaynr (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Passes WP:GNG. A prominent female politician. Kolma8 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. Has held no significant positions in political office.4meter4 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as delete. There was clear consensus that NPOL is not met and because that was core to the delete argument I also accepted assertions about the GNG. On review (requested on my talk page) I see that we have not really gotten into the weeds of the GNG. The commentary is more or less assertion, so can we look at the sources and have an analysis and discussion of them here please and that this the final outstanding issue. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging all participants on this AFD along with those on the article to evaluate each source to see if WP:GNG is established or not. There are 18 sources on the page so we can start by removing the trivial mentions and then go to the ones that need a deeper look. @Kashmorwiki, Kolma8, 4meter4, Beccaynr, TheBirdsShedTears, Usernamekiran, Bearian, Kaybeesquared, Ohnoitsjamie, AppuduPappudu, Drajay1976, and Goldsztajn: Vikram Vincent 07:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I already said my opinion several times here by analysing these complete sources and still stands with it. The subject does not have enough sigcov and fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 08:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing the source analysis and discussion, keep is my vote as WP:GNG overrides WP:NPOL. Chirota (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis While conceding that the subject does not satisfy WP:NPOL, to establish WP:GNG, WP:THREE independent reliable sources have been chosen that are fully focused on the subject. The remaining sources are either fully, partly or in-passing talking about the subject. In total they satisfy WP:BASIC. As pointed out by Beccaynr, the coverage has been over a several year period. Vikram Vincent 09:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources evaluation table:

Source	Evaluation
Banerjee, Ritabrata. "All India Conference of SFI calls for Consolidation and Expansion". Peoples Democracy.	Simply states that subject was elected as an national level office bearer
"SFI office-bearers elected at meet". The Hindu. 13 November 2005.	Subject elected as state secretary; focus on conference
http://eci.gov.in/archive/May2006/pollupd/ac/states/s11/Acnstcand92.htm	Govt website; dead link; used to show candidate info
"AIDWA demands release of Kerala SFI president Sindhu Joy from prison". OneIndia.	Based on a press release; demand for release of the subject post-arrest
"Season of suspense and surprises in Kerala". The Indian Express. Thiruvananthapuram.	Primary focus is the subject
"Are SFI leaders contesting against Oommen Chandy dark horses or lost causes?". The News Minute.	Brief mention of subject
Krishnakumar, P. K.; Sanandakumar, S. (25 March 2009). "It is experience Vs youth in Ernakulam". The Economic Times.	3/7 paragraphs on the subject
Sanandakumar, S (18 March 2014). "One thing's sure: The next Ernakulam MP will be Latin Catholic". Economic Times.	Brief mention of the subject
"Sindhu Joy quits as Youth Commission chief".	About the subject
Basheer, K. p m (3 April 2012). "Panel will focus on youth problems, says Sindhu Joy" – via www.thehindu.com.	Statement by the subject
"Firebrand Kerala student leader Sindhu Joy quits CPI(M)".	About the subject
"Sindhu Joy and Swaraj re-elected". The Hindu.	Focus on the subject with brief mention of another subject
"Firebrand SFI leader Sindhu Joy quits CPI-M". Zee News. Press Trust of India.	Article focuses on the subject
"VS in trouble for remark on ex-CPIM woman activist". Zee News. Press Trust of India.	Article quotes many sources for statements related to the subject
"CPM becoming increasingly net savvy". Times of India.	Brief mention of subject
Nair, C. Gouridasan (26 March 2011). "Desertions from CPI(M) show a pattern". The Hindu.	Half the article is about the subject
"Sindhu Joy as News Anchor in Surya TV". OneIndia.	Focused on the subject WP:THREE
Manayath, Nithin (19 August 2013). "Why We Keep Watching Malayalee House and Bigg Boss". Grist Media. Yahoo!News.	Brief mention of subject
"Sindhu Joy, participant of Malayalee House, back to politics". Times of India. TNN.	About subject
"A PHD after study and struggle".	About the subject WP:THREE
"Kerala has a rush of qualified candidates". The Hindu.	Brief mention of candidate
"Sindhu Joy weds businessman Santimon Jacob".	RS; About the wedding of the subject WP:THREE

Claims made by editor(s)	Source(s)/media claims	Outcome	Notability	Link
Simply states that subject was elected as an national level office bearer	P K Biju was elected as the new president while Ritabrata Banerjee was elected as the new general secretary. Sindhu Joy (Kerala), Sayandeep Mitra (West Bengal), P Biju (Kerala) and Nirmal Biswas (Tripura) were elected as the vice presidents	It is not a national post. However, P K Biju and Ritabrata Banerjee were elected to the national posts.	N	[41]
Subject elected as state secretary; focus on conference	WP:SIGCOV says, Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. and unfortunately, it doesn't talk about her birth date, education background etc.	FSI secretary may be notable but its state secretary is a non-notable post	N	[42]
Based on a press release; demand for release of the subject post-arrest	Y	It appears notable event, however it is worth mentioning that her arrest is linked to a non-notable political activity. None of the civilians protested for her release.	N	[43]
Primary focus is the subject	It is focused on political war alongside the subject	A political war between the parties doesn't satisfy notability. It decides her fate not notability.	N	[44]
Brief mention of subject	Do this talk about her education, birth date, birth place etc.?	Contesting presidential election or for the post of prime minister is a notable event. A candidate's debut in Lok Sabha election doesn't satisfy WP:NPOL.	N	[45]
3/7 paragraphs on the subject	talks about political activities within the state alongside the subject	Again states a political war between the candidates/parties	N	[46]
Brief mention of the subject	How is this a brief mention of the subject? It says, Sitting MP and Union Minister of State for Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution KV Thomas is the Congress nominee for the April 10 election. In 2009, he defeated Sindhu Joy of the CPM by about 11,000 votes.	False claim	N	[47]
About the subject	It again talks about her non-notable post	State Youth Commission is a youth wing in Karela and appointment to such posts are notable.	N	[48]
Statement by the subject	We have a policy on Wikipedia called WP:NOT	Statements are not sufficient to satisfy WP:GEN. Please see WP:ROUTINE	N	[49]
About the subject	Fail to satisfy GEN	Resigning from one party and entering into new party is redundant in WP:GEN	N	[50]
RS; About the wedding of the subject	Again, it talks about her non-notable role/post and marriage.	Doesn't satisfy WP:NPOL	N	[51]

Comment This is unfortunate that we are confused between WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOT.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An indentation leak has been fixed with the above table. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The second table again focuses on WP:NPOL which has already been conceded. The first table focuses on WP:BASIC which has been ignored. There are several fallacies and analytical problems with the second table. To state a few

Has linked to WP:GEN which expands to Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics

In row two, brings in a quote from WP:SIGCOV which makes absolutely no sense to the context

Says arrest was a notable event but civilians did not protest

States Do this talk about her education, birth date, birth place etc.? Articles don't need to focus on age, education etc to show notability. A source is not discounted unless it is unreliable

Asks about education in one article, which does not talk about education, and ignores the other article dedicated to the phd qualification of the subject

Claims "State youth commission" is a "youth wing" while it is actually a government body(This is not to establish notability but to show coverage of the subject)

The state is Kerala and not "Karela"(bitter gourd vegetable)

In brief, the second table misses the forest for the tree Vikram Vincent 11:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SIGCOV can't be undermined when the subject fails to pass NPOL. Every listed source talks about her role at SFI, a youth wing formed by Communist Party of India (Marxist). Unfortunately, none of the sources gives impressions of SIGCOV. Her role as state secretary or president at the youth wing is a non-notable post for which the subject has received media coverages. Media coverage is also focused on her resignations, participation in election, political war and joining new parties, or organizations. All coverage is about the subject's non-notable roles and events.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We use WP:NPOL only when WP:GNG ain't satisfied. The whole discussion of the first table was to show WP:BASIC and the second table fails at showing that BASIC is not satisfied(apart from introducing logical fallacies) Vikram Vincent 12:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC said, People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Here is an example of GEN, Independent and SIGCOV[52].The sources you presented doesn't satisfy GEN. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You got the definition of BASIC right but you are giving an ideal example of a source which is not going to be the case. We have to work with sources like the ones we have to put together WP:SIGCOV. Also I still have no idea what this "GEN" you keep referring to is since it links to some page on genetics. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced since the subject's coverage is focused on the posts which are not notable. Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX [53]. @Vincentvikra, we both have presented our opinions variously, but the fact is that this article fails to pass notability criteria such as SIGCOV. I requested you several times to present some similar articles here for comparison, but unfortunately you refused to do so. Almost every source says, "she is the leader of SFI", but we both know that she was appointed to this organization as a secretary or president for Kerala state not for the entire organisation. There are 36 union territories and states in India which means we have to create more 36 articles on Wikipedia for one organisation (SFI, a youth wing) for its state secretaries and presidents. The subject has also worked at other organisations which are also non-notable. Rest of sources discuss her personal political activities. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheBirdsShedTears I have no idea why you are invoking WP:SOAPBOX because the context appears to be completely misplaced and that currently appears to be a pattern. BTW I am only looking at WP:BASIC which is a less stringent form of notability compared to WP:GNG or WP:SNG. If you can limit your points around BASIC it will be good. Your other points around WP:NPOL are already conceded and need not be repeated as they simply form WP:Walls of text. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 06:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that the subject pass WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. The article claims Joy is a former politician. If you think that i should not refer to NPOL, it may be a good idea to remove the false claims made in article. She has not held any such posts per the claims and if you remove ...is a former politician from the lead, then subject will be referred to as Joy is an activist. To be more specific, she has not been engaged in any notable activism other than her resignations from party to party and contesting elections unsuccessfully. Regards TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have also made a source assessment table for what I think are the most significant sources currently in the article, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so, including because her 2005 injury at a demonstration and her 2006 incarceration, particularly in the context of the in-depth coverage of her educational endeavors at the time, do seem to be more than typical WP:NPOL notability, because these events were unrelated to her political career, even though they became politicized in national politics. In the discussion below, she also appears to have remained relevant to politics long after her formal political positions and unsuccessful candidacies, and to have received in-depth coverage for her non-political career in television. I did not include all of the coverage of her television career (news anchor and reality television) in the table below, nor the marriage announcement that lists her first (which seems to suggest she was the more notable party in the marriage). The following sources appear to support WP:BASIC and WP:GNG notability:

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
2005 SFI office-bearers elected at meet, The Hindu	value not understood Report on Joy elected president; includes her briefing of the media with secretary M. Swaraj; compare with trivial mentions of other officeholders at the end of the article.	? Unknown
2006 AIDWA demands release of Kerala SFI president Sindhu Joy from prison, OneIndia	Article is focused on Joy. Includes a statement from AIDWA President Subhashini Ali and General Secretary Sudha Sundararaman: "Sindhu Joy has been in the forefront of militant struggles against the privatisation of education that was a hallmark of Oomen Chandy's regime. She was the victim of a brutal police attack and is still unable to walk without the help of crutches, they said," which provides in-depth context to the report.	✔ Yes
2011 Season of suspense and surprises in Kerala, The Indian Express	The article is focused on Joy, and the description of Joy as the "'poster girl' of CPI(M)" provides context related to her past national -level notability, and includes an in-depth explanation, including "One striking image of the LDF campaign in 2006 was that of SFI leader Sindhu Joy leading a student agitation on crutches after she was injured, allegedly in a police lathicharge." The article also includes commentary from a Congress leader, i.e. "She is now in great demand by UDF contestants all over the state, who think that a young woman like Sindhu could defuse LDF's claim of being the passionate defenders of women's rights and privileges."	✔ Yes
2016 Are SFI leaders contesting against Oommen Chandy dark horses or lost causes?, The News Minute]	Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and this commentary offers substantial and in-depth information about Joy, in the context of how her history as a political candidate and political figure is relevant to politics in 2016.	✔ Yes
2009 It is experience Vs youth in Ernakulam , Economic Times	value not understood Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and this article includes commentary on Joy's political background, including, " Sindhu Joy, who had led several agitations as a student leader, is not the type who will wilt under the heat of a contest. Despite her relative inexperience, Ms Joy exudes confidence and is ready to tackle head on the developmental issues faced by Ernakulam. Traffic and drinking water problems and re-settlement and rehabilitation of people left homeless by development projects are high in her list of priorities." and "she can take pride that she is a candidate to contest from Ernakulam in the CPM symbol after many years. "	? Unknown
2012 Sindhu Joy quits as Youth Commission chief, The New Indian Express	The article is focused on Joy, and includes background, e.g. "former SFI State president [...]who was rewarded with the post of chairperson of a newly-formed State Youth Commission by the UDF Government" and commentary, "Sindhu’s nomination as chairperson had ruffled many a feather in the faction- ridden Congress, with many Youth Congress leaders, especially women, making their displeasure known to party higher-ups."	✔ Yes
2012 Panel will focus on youth problems, says Sindhu Joy, The Hindu	The article is focused on Joy, and includes biographical, other background information, and commentary, e.g. "Ms. Joy, 34, who holds a post-doctoral degree (her PhD was in media and politics and the post-doctoral thesis was on empowerment of tribal women), is a former State president of the Student Federation of India and a former member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)'s Thiruvananthapuram district committee. Just ahead of the April 2011 Assembly election, she had left the CPI(M) and joined the Congress, thus stirring up political ripples in the State. Considered an ' 'infant terrible' ' during her SFI days, Ms. Joy had contested the Puthuppally Assembly seat against Mr. Chandy in May 2006. [...]"	✔ Yes
2011 Firebrand SFI leader Sindhu Joy quits CPI-M, Press Trust of India/ZeeNews	The article is focused on Joy, and includes background information, e.g. "Sindhu, who was in the forefront of the agitation against UDF Government`s educational policies in 2005" [...] "During the 2006 polls, Sindhu had been projected by the LDF as a victim of "brute" handling of student stir against opening up of education sector to private sector by the UDF Government," as well as commentary from political officials.	✔ Yes
2011 Desertions from CPI(M) show a pattern, The Hindu	value not understood Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and this commentary includes background and detail about Joy's political career.	? Unknown
2013 Sindhu Joy as news anchor, OneIndia (Malayalam)	The article is focused on Joy, and includes in-depth coverage, e.g. her past political and television career, and her education background.	✔ Yes
2009 A PhD after study and struggle, The New Indian Express	This article focuses on Joy, including detail and context about her education, such as her injury during a 2005 protest, and "in 2006, when she was about to finalise the thesis, Sindhu was jailed by the police after slapping criminal charges on her with regard to a mass protest. She had to spend 24 days in jail before getting bail." Commentary includes, "The two election fights that had pole-vaulted her to stardom also happened during her research days."	✔ Yes
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}}.

Beccaynr (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per Beccaynr, and plenty of significant coverage both included in the article and per search. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are met. VocalIndia (talk) 05:44, 1 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) 01:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I checked several of the references in Beccaynr's table and they are good. Excellent work Beccaynr. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Simon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. At the very least, it's TOOSOON ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add - no prejudice against draft-i-fication as propsed by Sporting below. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Seems to me to meet GNG. His signing to the Panthers has received a separate article from NBC Sports, the Deseret News, USA Today Sports, KSL-TV, SB Nation, CBS Sports, and Sports Illustrated. Furthermore, his career outside of his signing has been the subject of a separate article in the Deseret News three other times, KSL-TV, USA Today Sports, and the Knoxville News Sentinel. If anything, it was WP:TOOSOON about a few hours ago. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:ROUTINE coverage of a sports signing. Someone tweets out a signing, every sports website runs an article. Does not create notability, in my interpretation. If it does, WP:GRIDIRON would be swallowed, as any player who is drafted or signed would be 'notable' regardless of whether they ever play a snap. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the use of "WP:ROUTINE", as this is a guideline meant for assessing the notability of Wikipedia articles about events and does not pertain to how coverage contributes to the notability of BLP subjects. Furthermore, subject-specific guidelines such as WP:GRIDIRON neither override a subject meeting the WP:GNG, nor must they be considered in conjunction with the GNG. They're simply there for further consideration if a subject may warrant an article but doesn't necessarily pass GNG; in essence, they exist to make inclusion more broad, not to restrict it, and therefore using the GNG instead of GRIDIRON does not somehow obviate the existence of GRIDIRON. Draftifying wouldn't be the end of the world, but I don't seriously see any good reason to, as this athlete is the main subject of at least 12 articles from reliable, independent sources and obviously passes the GNG. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. and In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Presumption of notability from NGRIDIRON is not sufficient in deletion discussions; the article still MUST meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I'm still in the WP:TOOSOON camp. He wasn't really a notable college player, all of that coverage is local including the coverage of the Tennessee game - let's be honest, the only reason why the article was created is because he got signed after appearing in a viral video. If he plays or continues to receive coverage now he's on an NFL team, easily moved back into mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 20:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify All that I could find besides the 13+ articles about his signing and profiles were his commitment to BYU, his college stats, an article on how he and other players were affected by Covid, BYU article/profile, an article titled "Micah Simon Ready to Play WR at BYU, and an interview. Some may not be Reliable Sources though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or delete. Per Sporting and Beanie's analysis of the lack of SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete I can't find enough SIGCOV-wise for an GNG pass. It's not even a given that Simon will make it to training camp (and possibly receive more coverage), let alone the 2021 opening roster of an NFL team, as it's not uncommon for players signed to futures contracts between the start of the NFL year and the Draft wind up getting cut to free up roster spots for undrafted free agents. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until he plays an official game. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:29, 13 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. – bradv🍁 19:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amora (mustard)[edit]

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

Has been deleted before, so here v. PROD. I cannot find any evidence this is a notable type of mustard. GHits are limited to blogs recommending it for a particular recipe. Not mentioned at Unilever, so a redirect unlikely to be helpful. StarM 17:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The mustard company itself appears to fail WP:NCORP. No particular guideline exists for food notability that I am aware of. However this seems to fail GNG regardless.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 19:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A number of different sources refer to the company and make claims about its importance. See in particular various citations on the French WP. Eldumpo (talk) 21:55, 2 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) 01:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unilever, just another brand in their portfolio at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably the most famous brand of mustard in France, and the most famous Dijon mustard. The article should probably be expanded, maybe from articles in other languages, with more details about the history of the company and not be so centred around the 1999 sale to Unilever though. Place Clichy (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could be vastly improved by bringing over material from the French page, which I will try my best to do if not deleted. Deku link (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR exists. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cook (author)[edit]

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

There does not appear to be significant coverage of this individual in secondary sources. Since this is a BLP, WP:NBIO applies. Within WP:NBIO, WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR seem to be most pertinent.

WP:BASIC states that people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

WP:AUTHOR states that authors are notable when any of the following are met:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
The person has 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.
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

As it pertains to WP:BASIC, it does not appear that the author meets the criteria. The author's page does not include any sources that provide significant, in-depth coverage into the author that are independent from one another. I have been unable to find these sources, despite extensive searching.

Likewise, the author does not appear to satisfy the criteria laid out in WP:AUTHOR; I can't find any reliable sources indicating that he is a particularly important figure per peers, that he has created significant new techniques or concepts, that his work constitutes a well-known body of collective work, or that his works have been significant on their own.

Prior to making this AfD, I had proposed this item for deletion. The proposal was removed after an editor added two sources, though these sources don't provide any real in-depth coverage of either Cook himself or his books.

For the reasons above, I am nominating this article for deletion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per... well, damn, everything you said. AdoTang (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ I'm digging up some sources like coverage from Arizona PBS and discussion of a book on Arizona PBS. Unfortunately he's a Sci-Fi author with most of his work pre-internet so we're unlikely to find reviews in a lot of the more modern sources. I'm at weak delete because I just don't have access to archives of the older magazines that may have written the necessary reviews to establish his notability. There's one such source in the article already, and I'd bet there's more. Unfortunately if I can't find them I can't use them to judge notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced by David Eppstein's sources. Keep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep it seems at least one of his books got some reviews and discussion Tintagel (novel) with three reviews listed in different magazines so that seems like sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. It is not much but I think he passes the bar. Also it seems like his work is even conserved by ASU which for me settles the case. --hroest 13:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see where he meets WP:AUTHOR, Yes he wrote books that were published by notable publishers, some of those books have some reviews and minor mentions. user:hroest mentions book reviews in magazines, but there is no evidence that those are independent, are the magazines owned or directed by the publisher of the books, who want to sell the books? As for being put in an archive, Project Gutenberg has lots of books in their archive, that does not make the authors notable at Wikipedia. No objections to recreation, if notability can be shown, but I don't see that happening. Jeepday (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Locus lists two published reviews of his books The Engines of Dawn and Fortress on the Sun [54]. ISFDB lists four reviews and a Locus best first novel award for Tintagel [55], one review for The Alejandra Variations [56], six reviews for Duende Meadow [57], one for Halo [58], three for On the Rim of the Mandala [59], two for Fortress on the Sun (including the Locus one) [60], and three for The Engines of Dawn (including Locus) [61], Most or all of the reviews themselves are not online, I think, but that should not be relevant; they are independent of the author and reliably published in wide-circulation genre magazines. I think that's more than enough for WP:AUTHOR. The nomination smacks of WP:RECENTISM: he was a notable SF author in the 1980s, and although sources from the 1980s can be hard to access (too old to be easily found on line, too new to be scanned and archived) once notable always notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just because an author's books are wikinotable (requiring multiple reviews), doesnt necessarily mean that the author is, as WP:NAUTHOR (no. 3) requires works to not just be reviewed but also to be "significant or well-known", none of them are held by 3figure+ libraries, most are held in under 50 libraries, the highest are is Duende Meadow (64 libraries), and The Alejandra variations (55 libraries), it does look funny, though, when there are/could be wikiarticles on 2 or more (even 5?:)) books but not one on the author. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work ...(multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Wouldn't multiple reviews in different publications be the multiple independent periodical reviews? The reviews and articles themselves are what inform us that the body of work is well known. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isnt that common sense: if an author has written multiple books that would pass the notability test, wouldnt it make sense to have an article about the author? Also this is exactly what NAUTHOR #3, addresses exactly this case "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." -- that says exactly if the author has created notable work, as demonstrated through multiple reviews for each book, then the author is notable? --hroest 20:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

if this was the case, (work(s) have received multiple reviews so author is notable), than the first sentence would be redundant and not required, but with Cook this is now a moot point due to the cogent reasoning given by SouthernNights below. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This author has published 8 novels with major publishing companies along with stories in a large number of major SF/F magazines and one of his novels was a finalist for the Locus Award. In addition, the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction feels the author is notable enough to warrant his own entry. Cook is notable per the guidelines for authors because he "won significant critical attention" back in the day. I have added a number of citations to the article to back up this notability, but just because the reviews and coverage of his work mostly predate the internet era does not take away from that notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:58, 4 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) 01:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable author who has published a good number of novels and has received significant coverage. Northern Escapee (talk) 10:09, 11 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art Alive Art Gallery[edit]

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

Notability fail. I saw one or two brief sources that discuss the gallery itself. The vast majority of the sources in this refbombed article are about the artists showing there and not the gallery. Notability is not inherited. It might be worth noting that this was created by a now blocked undisclosed paid editor. --- Possibly (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be a major art gallery in India, and has good sourcing. The category 'Contemporary art galleries in India' lists only four (this is one of only two in New Delhi), so Wikipedia is not overrun with pages about India art galleries, which implies that this one is an important venue for national and Asian artists. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: whether or not we have article on something is not an indicator of notability. The sourcing here is about the artists and not about the gallery, by and large.--- Possibly (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Right now it's borderline WP:TNT. The formatting is a nightmare, the page is filled with trivia, and the sourcing is focused on the artists, rather than the exhibiter. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worth looking at notability criteria for subjects related to contemporary arts here [62]. Notability of a contemporary art institution is met if the following standards are being followed (1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale (2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. The artists hosted at the gallery are both national and international artists including Raghu Rai & Maite Delteil.

There are also sources talking about the gallery itself. [63] The Culture Trip lists it as one of the Delhi’s best 10 Contemporary Art Galleries. So does Luxeva [64]. I think it is natural for the media to write more about the activities of an art gallery rather than the gallery itself since the identity of the gallery is nothing but the reflection of the artists it would curate.

Some other sources that may help [65], [66], , [67], [68] Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I consider the references above essential PR. There is no indication that this gallery has shown any significant number of notable artists or held notable exhibitions DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many notable artists hosted such as Sakti Burman Maite Delteil Venkat Shyam Paresh Maity Raghu Rai The Singh Twins Thota Vaikuntam, Anjolie Ela Menon, Jatin Das (painter) etc Behind the moors (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a result of a paid for PR campaign, having hosted notable artists does not lend itself without adequate coverage. TAXIDICAE💰 19:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evaluating the sources suggests it's borderline; there's a few sources I would consider solid enough that mention the gallery in more than passing, but I don't think there's significant coverage demonstrated overall. Notable artists don't transfer notability to the gallery. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:00, 18 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illma Gore[edit]

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

Article fails general notability guidelines, as well as WP:BLP1E. Illma Gore painted Trump with a micropenis in 2016, and was repeatedly blocked by eBay for trying to sell the painting and temporarily blocked from Facebook for a violation of their "no nudity" policy. These blockings garnered more attention than the actual artwork. I went through the article a couple of months ago, and found the sources lacking: primary sources and a Wikipedia article being used as a source, and Gore not being mentioned in most of the higher-quality sources. I'd ordinary just redirect this article to the most notable topic, but in Gore's case that's Indecline—a production company known for creating videos of stoned teenagers jumping out of vans and assaulting unsuspecting homeless people ("Bumfights"). In my opinion, Indecline should be deleted as well. But that's a discussion for another day. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe a small sub-section in an Anti-Trump article, not much to show she's notable otherwise. Just an angry artist. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and clears BLP1E because she has received coverage for more than one work of art (three in fact). Furthermore, coverage for the Micropenis portrait was sustained, and covered multiple facets of the work, thus BLP1E is a hard case to make there. It is disingenuous to say that the work was only covered because she was blocked. The work was covered because the image spread widely on social media. And ad hominem attacks by trying to suggest she is somehow related to Bumfights, or calling her "Just an angry artist" are POV. Theredproject (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Source quality remains an issue. I removed all the worst quality sources prior to nomination, but the article still uses several exceptionally poor quality references, including Narratively, data-mining company Vocativ, primary source Artnet, as well as a source which I only now realise is a WP:BLOG piggy-hopping on the name of the long-ago (1984) out-of-publication Lip (magazine). That's a good chunk of the current article. Looking further into the sources, "Marriage Equality" was not Gore's project, but a stunt by several protesters; the Mexico/Arizona border project received little attention; and there's nothing in the article indicating that Gore's human blood painting was ever completed. So really only one of Gore's art projects received sustained coverage from reliable third party sources, and the sources currently included on the article spend more time discussing her bans from social media and eBay than the actual painting. Also, I never "[tried] to suggest she is somehow related to Bumfights", but that the one project she is most famous for was associated with the production company that made Bumfights. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hoeostasis07's good analysis that shows that we lack the significant 3rd-party coverage that would be needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's rare indeed when I agree with Johnpacklambert, but he and Homeostasis07 are both spot on here. There are not enough independent sources demonstrating notability. Deus et lex (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely feels like a borderline 1E situation with little in the way of significant coverage at the time and very little sourcing after the fact to demonstrate notability. Sourcing is extremely borderline to poor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus on notability. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evelio Otero Sr.[edit]

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

The bio is based entirely on his wife's dissertation, and BEFORE shows up nothing to verify the sole claim to notability: first television anchorman in Puerto Rico and one of the first in Latin America, nevermind significant, in depth coverage to meet Notability guidelines. I was going to redirect this to his son, but it's unclear that the article is going to survive AfD. Rather than an accidental stealth deletion, bringing it here for discussion. StarM 18:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. This non-neutral bio sourced only to a single reference by the subject's wife makes numerous unverified claims. Mztourist (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of third party RS Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is notable. He was regarded as one of the historical pillars of television journalism in Puerto Rico - El Adoquín Times, El Neuvo Dia, article published by Institute of Puerto Rican culture, this book talks about him, and I think other offline sources are likely to exist. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, not sure how my search missed the first couple (last link doesn't work for me for some reason, and I think this one is his son). Thank you. Not withdrawing yet as there are other delete !votes, but will add these to the article for future !voters should it be kept. StarM 19:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Star Mississippi, yes his son is the subject of the source that you pointed out, but I think it states that his father was one of the historical figures of Puerto Rican television. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks Ashleyyoursmile. Only the first paragraph is loading for me about following in his fathers' footsteps. I added what I could from the sources you found. Some basic biographical details disagree and I'm inclined to defer to Adoquin Times as it's sourced, but with much of it off by just one year I wonder if there was some discrepancy (likely in Cuban records) StarM 19:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have also found these, however they're not in open access - 1, page 390, 2, 3 and 4. Not sure if this coverage is significant, but it shows he was mentioned in many sources. Less Unless (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Less Unless, I can access this one and infortunately it's just mentions of his work on the channels. Nothing yet to back up the pioneer, sadly. Will see what I can use to add to the article though as it's still vastly unsourced. StarM 14:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trending towards keep, but if editors who !voted delete before the identification of new articles would like to revisit, that would help pin down that conclusion. @Bumbubookworm: @Mztourist:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 15:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no change to my Delete, the sourcing is still inadequate. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nom Comment there isn't enough that I've found to withdraw my nom. We can verify that he did work in television, but the notability is still thin. StarM 12:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain delete per above Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With the previous !votes confirmed there is currently no consensus about the notability of this person.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist to assess notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He would seem notable, but the article is lacking much for citations. You'd have to dig to find them and a G search doesn't turn up any. There is the one citation in the article for the Puerto Rican Cultural Journal, seems notable but I can't read most of it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Source states he was the first to introduce teleprompting at Spanish TV news station in order for the newscaster to look at his audience, rather than look down at his paper. So he was a pioneer and a first. I found another source and added it to the article. I believe he meets notability for being the first newscaster seen on Puerto Rico television when news moved from radio to TV. That is sourced. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:45, 7 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) 00:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ying Ma (writer)[edit]

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

There is no coverage in reliable sources of the subject. The subject fails the notability test. She appears to have been on the staff of a failed presidential campaign, written op-eds in conservative outlets, and self-published a book. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I can find are reviews of "Chinese Girl in the Ghetto", the book she wrote and even these are few and far between. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has been published in several non-conservative outlets as well, particularly on foreign policy matters, e.g. NBC News and WSJ. She makes relatively frequent appearances on cable news, and was frequently quoted during the No on 16 campaign in California last year, and as such will be someone people will want to look up. WP is about the only place where she is described as a "writer" which likely explains absence her from searches; "Ying Ma activist" and "Ying Ma author" are more productive.-- choster (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She has written op-eds for NBC News and the WSJ. NBC News and WSJ have not covered her. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have cleaned up the article and added details and relevant references. See article history since they have been deleted by User:Snooganssnoogans.
author of Chinese Girl in the Ghetto
lawyer at a global law firm (law at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett)
member of a few think-tanks
political senior advisor
communications director
radio host
nonprofit executive. President of Three Kingdom Institute.
Presidential Campaign Deputy Policy Director and Communications Director for Ben Carson.
deputy director of a pro-Trump super PAC.
visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution.
President of the Stanford Chapter of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies

SWP13 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the content you added was near-exclusively sourced to self-authored bios and to other self-sourced work (such as op-eds). If you weren't a regular editor, I would have strongly suspected your edit of being WP:COI due to the poor sourcing and the puffery. The fact that you filled this page with that kind of content (10,000 bytes) and was unable to find ANY reliable secondary coverage of this person demonstrates perfectly that she fails WP:N. Since this editor (and Choster) have failed to demonstrate anything that indicates WP:N (note also that both editors have edited the article), their comments should be dismissed by the closer. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing significant, in-depth coverage independent of the subject. She may later become notable as a pundit, but not there yet. Neutrality^talk 16:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the new sources (one is her "About Me" part from the website and the other just a bio from her employer), I don't see notability. They don't discuss her at length in any third-party journals, newspapers or books. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only primary or useless secondary sources. Mcguy15 (talk)

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

[1] {{Cite web|url=https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/munavvar-ali-thangal-elected-myl-state-president-muslim-youth-league-1.1581884

[2] {{Cite web|url=https://resources.gaje.org/conferences/9th-worldwide-conference/2017-presenters-bios/?id=5906

[3] {{Cite web|url=https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/cpm-attempts-for-backdoor-appointments-in-calicut-university-alleges-youth-league-1.5073986

[4] {{Cite web|url=https://www.news18.com/news/politics/tanur-candidate-list-key-contests-in-tanur-assembly-constituency-of-kerala-3589433.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]