Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 12 February 14 >

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. Sandstein 12:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac equations[edit]

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

The underlying theory, introduced in [1][2] is legitimate research that failed to capture the interest of the scientific community. I don't want to argue about notability, though, because the main problem is that the article as it currently exists is nonsensical drivel, almost qualifying for WP:G1. It has languished under maintenance tags for more than 10 years and nobody competent appeared to fix it. Even if it were notable, the only way forward would be WP:TNT. Tercer (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page seems to have maybe five sentences at best of real content and a bunch of publications and non-peer-reviewed stuff. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely does not qualify for WP:G1 now. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 16:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete" - agree, this article is a mess, that is most likely unrecoverable. --Bduke (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. There is nothing recoverable here. These are deep and vast equations and WP has maybe 500 maybe 1000 existing articles exploring all their various aspects and how they inter-relate and flow into one another. This article as written is garbled and appears to make interpretive errors. (and yes, the arxiv papers do look interesting, but this article does not describe those papers.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can be recovered and restarted. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 09:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AnotherEditor144: That is true regardless of whether the current content is kept or deleted. --JBL (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JayBeeEll: There is still useful content. Throw away all of the bad stuff, and the good stuff remains. Sure, it will be a stub, but that is okay. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 15:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AnotherEditor144: The article is more likely to survive this AfD if you do that (remove the bad stuff) so that it is easier to tell that what remains is in fact legitimate (i.e., supported by multiple independent reliable sources). --JBL (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JayBeeEll:  Doing... AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 15:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JayBeeEll: This will probably be  On hold for me. Can you consider working on it? I [3] an uncited paragraph, among other things AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 15:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this AfD fails, then rewrite the article. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 16:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:G1 explicitly does not cover poor writing. You can start an article from scratch without deleting it - see WP:TNTTNT. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 16:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with the article is not poor writing, but rather that the content is incoherent rambling (and I'm not claiming it falls under WP:G1 anyway). There's nothing worth salvaging. Also note that the article has been like this for 10 years, and nobody showed up to fix it. I don't think it is ever going to happen. Tercer (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tercer: Maybe this AfD will give people a reason to improve it. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 08:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been replying to every single comment in this AfD, so you must deeply care about the subject. Fix the article yourself then if you want to save it, "maybe somebody will do it" is not good enough. Tercer (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Opinion is increasingly turning against a deletion. This is not a consensus yet (only 75% of !votes are Keep), but it might be soon. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 16:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I think the WP:TNT reasoning has backfired. See WP:TNTTNT. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 16:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Might not quite be G1, but the page is definitely deep into TNT territorry. Nothing worth saving here. Nsk92 (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is! I am  Doing..., and remember WP:TNTTNT. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 08:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to classical field theory (or one of various other valid targets) in absence of salvageable content. Of course it's a thing [4] (leaving aside the usual half-assed Davidson Google Books Oracle); but as noted, this is a complex topic that is being done a disservice by this hodge-podge skim treatment of some buzzwords off the top. I really don't know much about this area, but what I understand tells me that any reader who finds this article will be going away in greater confusion than they arrived. We do not keep crappy material around indefinitely; such topics are better off as redirects until an editor writes something actually useful. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elmidae and Nsk92: Then someone will clean it up. Remember this every time you do something like this. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 08:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you will find out in short order that relentless badgering of every single comment is not a way to get taken seriously in any discussion on WP. Neither is trying to play essays off against each other. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went through your Google Scholar results, and there are plenty of false positives and trivial mentions. It would be helpful if you could find a single WP:SECONDARY source in order to establish notability. Tercer (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tercer: Sure, plenty of partial matches, but to my understanding we are served here by anything that deals with "Einstein-Maxwell-Dirac theory" (and the related equations); and that one we will find covered in most specialized textbooks, e.g Symmetries in Fundamental Physics, and many of these Scholar hits. It's certainly a thing that people might search for. - In any case, I'd rather the search came up blank than with this article, so deletion would be my second choice. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It doesn't seem to deal with Finster et al.'s work specifically, but the book does mention related approaches to quantum gravity such as Einstein-Yang-Mills theory and Einstein-Dirac-Yang-Mills-Higgs theory, which would probably be a better basis for an article anyway. Tercer (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article doesn't even say what these equations are. There are a few papers by Finster/Smoller/Yau on these equations, but the article makes no coherent argument why these equations are generally notable. If this is kept, everything but maybe the first sentence should be removed. —Kusma (t·c) 12:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There doesn't seem to be any doubt about which equations are meant but, in any case, article indicates by links that the equations in question are:
Andrew🐉(talk) 17:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am assuming that the article "Einstein-Maxwell-Dirac equations" should deal with the Einstein-Maxwell-Dirac equations, which are distinct from the Einstein equations, the Maxwell equations, the Dirac equation or the Einstein-Maxwell equations. If you look into some of Finster et al.'s papers, you can find out what the EMD equations are, but the present Wikipedia article gives no hint whatsoever (other than the educated guess "a suitable combination of other equations", but how these should be combined is exactly the question here). —Kusma (t·c) 20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. --JBL (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is a good illustration of how the bag-of-words approach to judging notability fails for technical topics. XOR'easter (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically in recognition of the fact that it's been broken for a decade. The commonality of the names in the physics literature will naturally lead to a heap of false positives in Google Books and Scholar results. (What's more illuminating is looking to see how much attention the original publications have gotten; for example 46 citations in 22 years, including self-citations and non-peer-reviewed material, is very low for the subject area. This aligns with the nominator's statement that the topic is legitimate research that failed to capture the interest of the scientific community.) This is the kind of topic that would better be written about in an article on the problem it is attempting to solve or the general question its inventors were trying to illuminate. However, the current text is so poor, rambling about various supposed features of the theory rather than defining it and resorting to PowerPoint-style bullets halfway through, that there would be nothing to merge. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Umm, no, this is in TNT territory. May be notable but will need a comprehensive rewrite. JavaHurricane 01:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree there is nothing to salvage here, and it really doesn't help that this has been the case for a whole decade. Lennart97 (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blow it up and start again. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 16:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bugler Coaches[edit]

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

No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources - fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah A. Matthews[edit]

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

A deputy press secretary is a minor appointed political position and does not fulfill the notability requirements of NPOL. Further, this article was created by the editor "SarahAMatthews1" which would appear to have a COI in regard to this subject. Or, since the article was created in a single edit, it may be the work of a paid editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I’m not seeing WP:GNG here. The COI editing is also on the WP:DYNAMITE level. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [The following comment was mistakenly posted on the talk page, so I'm copying it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)][reply]
    This article fulfills 2 of the so-called "NPOL" required criteria: (#4). The person has been elected or APPOINTED to serve on a given country's legislative body or LEGISLATURE ON A NATIONAL or subnational LEVEL; And (#7). The person is a major local political figures who have RECEIVED SIGNIFICANT PRESS COVERAGE OUTSIDE THEIR SPECIFIC REGION. This account has no affiliation with the object of the article, as stated during the non-autobiographical disclaimer. This is a viable article pertaining to a political official who has served in four consecutive posts at the national level, and been headlined in the Washington Post, Times of India, New York Times, and various television outlets. There are several pages which reference less noteworthy and published figures, such as "TJ Ducklo", "Brian Morgenstern", "Judd Deere", "Eric Schultz" and numerous other White House aides and secretaries. This article is equally as notable as a repeated precedent of the notability and noteworthiness of Presidential aides and United States National figures. This article is tremendously well sourced by reputable outlets which both contribute to and support this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahAMatthews1 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A deputy press secretary, even in the White House, is a minor position which is a straightforward hire by the President, and serves at his or her pleasure. They're not elected, and barely even "appointed", they're just hired. They don't have to be confirmed by anyone, and there's no requirement that the President even have a deputy press secretary. They could have none, or 6, or whatever fits into the budget. They get their name in the papers frequently because they pass along information from the President, but that doesn't confer any notability to their own selves, the information could have easily come from a printed handout. They are a mere transmission channel from the President to the press, and not in any way notable in and of themselves. I'm sure they'd like to think of themselves as being pretty darn important, but it's all an illusion, and -- at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned -- they're just not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Fails GNG and overall notability for members of a presidential administration. --Bettydaisies (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an absurd process. This article has been up for 15 seconds and is being flagged by anonymous users as BOTH being created by the subject (which is false and completely unsubstantiated) AND being paid-for by some undisclosed agency (which is also completely FALSE and unsubstantiated). This is why I used the word "spam", and this kind of pile-on bullying behavior destroys hard work, accessibility, and information, and helps nothing and no one. There is a wikipedia page currently up, and has been up for months if not a year, for a co-worker of the subject of this article, yet this article is getting flagged for "notability." An article is being targeted by baseless flags, even at the national and international levels, even well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahAMatthews1 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're all pseudonymous (not "anonymous"), just as you are. In any case the article has been "up" for about an hour and three-quarters, which is plenty of time to determine is the subject is notable or not. It doesn't take that long to read WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and compare their requirements to the content of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, if you'd like to tell us the name of the article about the "co-worker", I'm sure we'd all be happy to look at it and nominate it for deletion if it, too, fails notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you were referring to Brian R. Morgenstern, another of Trump's deputy press secretaries. If so, you'll be relieved to know that I've nominated it for deletion as well, on the same grounds. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It’s difficult not to call the integrity of the article into question, both given your username and history of edits within the article. Separately, the notability of this article is clearly in question given WP guidelines - as previously stated, if other articles meet similar terms, their notability should also be questioned. This is how Wikipedia works. Due process, reasonable concern, and baseline policy is in no way “bullying” “spam” or “baseless”.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am undecided about notability at this time, but I want to say that the interpretation of WP:NPOL by SarahAMatthews1 above is spurious. The language about appointments refers to appointment to a vacant legislative seat. Example: Alex Padilla was recently appointed to fill the remainder of Kamala Harris' term when she became vice president. This guideline does not apply to appointed legislative aides or White House aides or their equivalents in other countries. In 13+ years of editing, I have never seen this guideline applied this way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think the only scintilla of a possibility of notability would come with the reaction to Matthews' resigning after the Insurrection. I considered that, but it did not, in and of itself, seem significant enough as a one-time event to warrant an entire article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With the exception of articles produced by her alma mater, which are not independent since they promote the university and its graduate, the coverage consists of passing mentions and brief quotations, exactly as expected of press aides. There is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I request that SarahAMatthews1 provide a link to the other article, so that uninvolved editors can evaluate the references in that article as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears unlikely that I will get a response to my request since SarahAMatthews1 has just been indefinitely blocked. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Passing mentions as would be expected from her job (per WP:MILL), but no WP:SIGCOV by a proper independent quality WP:RS on her. The article and construction is WP:UPE, and her piece on her resignation (which I removed), is WP:PROMO and WP:UNDUE. Using Wikipedia to build her notability, however, it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per foregoing rationales and per nom statement, though WP:COI/WP:PAID editing are not in and of themselves deletion rationales to me. Subject does not meet notability requirements despite creator's spurious and misguided arguments to the contrary. The coverage is not sufficient. I came here from the ANI thread and decided to see for myself. They do not meet NPOL, GNG, or ANYBIO. Britishfinance puts it well, above. Though Tobias has wisely precluded deleting under WP:CSD at the ANI thread, I feel this page does meet enough of my criteria for WP:G11 for biographies that I would likely have honored a CSD tag. I do not agree subject meets WP:A7. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched and found that the subject lacks significant coverage in independent RS. She's young though and she at least has an ounce of sense so maybe she'll accomplish something notable in the future. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet NPOL, and few mentions in RS beyond qoutes attributed to her while she was affiliated with the Trump campaign, as expected from her previous position. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 02:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Delete as the work of now-blocked trolls. The subject may satisfy general notability; in my opinion, the subject probably is notable, but that need not be considered. Even if the article appears to be correct and even if the subject is notable, its veracity is suspect because it was written by trolls. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as Robert and lack of sig coverage too. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make it clear, in WP:NPOL's to serve on a given country's legislative body or legislature, that "on" is very important. She's not a person who serves on either branch of Congress - those would be Senators and Congresspersons. No, she has served the body, worked for them. That's a very different situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Seems like a case of COI. DoctorsHub (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. - Aoidh (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 09:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most are supporting a delete. Let this wait a day, then delete it. I watchlisted this page for actions. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 09:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above — fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL — not a member of a legislative body, neither elected nor confirmed cabinet appointment. I'm not a pseudonymous editor. Just happened upon this over at ANI, next to a discussion I'd initiated there.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. M.Bitton (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete as a conflict of interest. An untrained eye could’ve been fooled though so good on Beyond My Ken for catching it! Trillfendi (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haas F1 Junior Team[edit]

Haas F1 Junior Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The entity in question (Haas F1 Junior Team) does not exist and never has. Only one source actually mentions the word "junior" (in context of junior racing series) and they cover announcements of Haas F1 Team's reserves and development drivers. The subject has been completely invented and I am inclined to invoke CSD A11, but given my past experience with CSD I suppose an AfD will have to do. 5225C (talk • contributions) 23:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 5225C (talk • contributions) 23:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 5225C (talk • contributions) 23:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Most of the discussion I can find when searching for "Haas Junior Team" is either whether or not Haas is Ferrari's junior team, and the two new drivers who were Ferrari juniors. I agree this doesn't appear to even exist, let alone be notable. A7V2 (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was considering nominating this for deletion myself, but looking at the sources is looks like the entity does exist, although the article title may not be accurate. Specifically, this quote from Arjun Maini: “It’s an honour to be a part of Haas F1 Team’s driver development program,”, indicating that they have/had a driver development programme, even if it isn't called the "Haas F1 Junior Team" [1]. That being said, I am not willing to support a keep position because this is the only source I could find that hints at any kind of driver development programme from Haas, the rest of the drivers listed in the article are there through original research, and one driver does not make a programme or a team.
    SSSB (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the entity's supposed owner has never acknowledged or advertised its existence it doesn't seem to me like it could be proven by a single quote. Supposing it does exist, which I do not believe it currently does (if ever), notability has not been established and the article's content is based upon (as you have said) original research.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 12:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.haas-sign-indian-racer-arjun-maini.2t3r8R2GE4QcIGMqW0kKIY.html
  • Delete as failing verifiability. A driver development program could be discussed within the main article, but if this isn't a name associated with the program, a redirect won't be used/helpful. StarM 16:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the "program" could be discussed within the main article because none of these drivers have ever been associated with a Haas junior development program, they've been announced as reserve or test drivers for the team (which is what the sources in the article say). It seems to me like the author of the article has assumed that any test or reserve driver must be part of a team's junior program and has tried to put together an article on that without the program itself existing.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 22:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless information can be verified - At the moment this article's contents appear to be at best original research, at worst an outright hoax. While there is some evidence in the sources that suggest some sort of informal programme may exist, that is not enough to verify anything. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:SIGCOV, I could find no mention of any such team when searching for it.09:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The arguments for keeping are more numerous and more persuasive. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Pink[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. Nothing notable achieved by the Party. The citations, while plentiful, offer nothing much once the mundane, administrative and expected have been stripped away. Intend to stand for election, so I suspect we have some potential misuse of Wikipedia as a free publicity tool alongside a clear failure to meet GNG standards. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties" -- rather, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 09:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Registered political party with media coverage and expected to field a candidate in forthcoming mayoral election as verified in independent news sources. PamD 11:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is significant coverage and will be more.Charles (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we delete political parties because they havent achieved anything notable we wont have many left. Rathfelder (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It appears to be a real political movement that has been reported on significantly in the mainstream media, so meeting the general notability guideline threshold for subject matter. The article complies with the requirements of neutrality, verifiability, not being advertising and no original research. No obvious reason it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Cotter (talk • contribs) 02:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Minor political party with no elected representatives. If it does succeed, then an article can be made at that point. --RaviC (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets criteria for inclusion — there is signficant coverage, is independent of the subject and comes from reliable secondary sources. It is a registered political party and established direct action group. Viséan (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarfoot (character)[edit]

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

No evidence this meets WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article as it stands relies entirely on unreliable sources and Big Cartoon Database entries of episodes with the character, nothing that shows notability. Waxworker (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of reliable coverage. fails GNG. DoctorsHub (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC) sock strike --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SKCRIT#1, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley DeSantis[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep finding plenty of coverage on his business career on Newspapers.com (some of which I have added to the article) and some in ProQuest (which I have not yet added to the article. Also found coverage in Google Books (in magazines). Can't yet comment on his acting career --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DiamondRemley39. May not be notable as an actor, but is notable for his businesses and meets the GNG for the newspaper coverage he's received. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes GNG. DoctorsHub (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the general notability guideline. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 09:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think we have a consensus now, let it wait a day or two then remove the template. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 09:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination based on consensus. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsamerica[edit]

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

I declined a speedy as G11 (promotion) by User:Drmies, but after stubbing the article to remove promotional content I am not finding significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only such source is the COHA profile, which isn't sufficient for notability. I may not be looking in the right places. Fences&Windows 21:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 21:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 21:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow delete. No reason to keep this running. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network schedule[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, and this article, which is also completely unreferenced, is therefore not of encyclopedic value. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a consensus now. We have 8 Delete !votes. Let's close this in a day or 2. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 08:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any more discussion. This should be deleted. Can someone find an admin to end this?AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 09:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it with a generic CSD tag, since there is no other way I can think of for gently paging the group of admins willing to look at AfD closes.----Pontificalibus 13:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel there should be a better way to request a speedy close. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So do I, but I don't know if it exists.----Pontificalibus 18:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pontificalibus: Me neither. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 18:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At 20:20, Extraordinary Writ said: "A G11 or G12 is just gilding the lily". G12 - not so sure. G11 - no URL. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 20:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: We need an admin. Can you find one? AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 08:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think we have a consensus (9 Delete !votes to 0 Keep !votes). This AfD needs to be closed and the article deleted. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 16:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

W. Green (Surrey cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I never knew we still had articles for initial-only players from English counties. I see he is listed on List of Surrey cricketers, if so I'm assuming he is good for a merge. Bobo. 20:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails all notability guidelines. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 09:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure. WP:NCricket does state: "Have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level". Based on that he is notable, even in this is a contentious notability guideline. I found an article on the Australian Cricket Archive from 1894 which states Surrey used a large number of players during this period. Also added Wisden archive record from ESPNCric. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; comprehensively fails GNG. Also must be considered a failure of NCRIC due to questionable F-C status of the one match we know about (pre-1895, when F-C status became officially recognised), and knowing that F-C is not an equivalence to "highest international or domestic level" anyway. No value in leaving a redirect. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First Class Cricket is a term that has unknown origins, but was agreed by clubs in 1895 to be adopted for county cricket. The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians state that all matches prior to 1895 of a high standard as important matches, which they count county matches in. And the ICC state "that first class cricket, which for this purpose includes all "important matches" played before 1895" is one of the highest forms of cricket.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost. However "high standard" was far from the only consideration for designation as FC or important; and like FC, "important" also does not (always) equate to "highest level". wjematherplease leave a message... 15:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's unreasonable to doubt the status of the Derbyshire v Surrey match that Green appeared in: the Surrey team contained the Reads, Shuter, and Bobby Abel, though there were contemporary complaints about the quality of other players, especially, in this match, the bowlers, and the team had already lost heavily at Nottingham before losing this game. Derbyshire was regarded as a "leading county" at this stage, though this was the first time it had played Surrey. So Green passes WP:NCRIC, whatever that is worth these days. More worrying, perhaps, is that no one seems to know who he was or even what his first name was. That's true too of another player in the same match, W. Wood, who also played for Surrey at Nottingham in the same month and, with two matches, also passes WP:NCRIC without us knowing who he really was. Johnlp (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Derbyshire's history and record around this time speaks for itself. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Leading" is used by Wisden at this stage and later for the counties whose teams were considered top-level in the domestic game at the time. The Association of Cricket Statisticians published lists of what it retrospectively termed "first-class" matches going back to 1801 about 20 years ago, and the status of most matches (top-class or not-top-class, or whatever word you want to use) at least from 1864 onwards isn't in much dispute: the game that Green played in isn't anywhere doubted. (But maybe you know better than Wisden and the ACS.) My point is that he therefore passes WP:NCRIC (as does W. Wood), and you can take your choice whether this means he then gets a presumptive pass pro tem for WP:GNG or not. But there's surely a more basic problem with WP:V and WP:N if we don't know who he was. Johnlp (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of all that, and of contemporary commentary; I think my point is being missed (I'll try and find a better/clearer way of expressing it next time). Anyway, even if you offer that presumption, it is not a bypass of GNG. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. Sampath[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zia-ul-Haque[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Richardson (Dorset cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A thoroughly non-notable figure, and I live in Dorset myself. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable cricketer Rondolinda (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded individual matches, playing for one of the minor counties does not meet this standard. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found (only passing mentions in local routine cricket reports, and the usual wide-ranging databases) and no reason to expect that any exists. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Morgan[edit]

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

Sources given are passing mentions and I cannot find any reliable WP:SIGCOV. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is not notable, per WP:GNG. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 09:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep since she has a UK Who's Who entry Piecesofuk (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article a little with a number of references from The Times Piecesofuk (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added Guardian reference which reported that she was the highest paid woman employed by a UK-quoted company in 2007; and Daily Telegraph interview reference Piecesofuk (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are improvements going on. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 20:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)#[reply]
  • Keep as per new sources added which have now strengthen its notability. Luciapop (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Cullip[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - should be easier to find information based on the fact that they are an English cricketer. Wonder if there is justifcation as to why there was a significant gap in his career. Bobo. 20:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. apropos Bobo's comment, he produces no responses in The Times. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no access to online archives to newspaper articles. Not that, in this climate, I would want to! Good-naturedly and sarcastically yours... Bobo. 09:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With regard to the supposed "gaps", he was probably playing lower level club cricket that simply isn't recorded in the usual database records. Also, he's more likely to be notable for his brief minor counties career than 2 LA matches (NOTE: none of these matches meet the "highest domestic level" standard defined by NCRIC). wjematherplease leave a message... 12:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable cricket player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Zahoor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable cricketer Rondolinda (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another in a very long line of non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalifa Abdur Rehman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar-ul-Haq[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maqsood-ul-Haq[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm sure that shouldn't have led to a misplaced link when I first added it. Strange. Anyway. Bobo. 20:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Technically passes NCRIC, but a first-class cricketer who played only in one game (more than 40 years ago) is unlikely to have the sort of coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG, and except for mentions in listings such as this, what search results I could (or rather, could not) find tend to confirm this assumption. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Crinifer. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plantain-eater[edit]

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

This seems to be a duplicate of the newly-created Crinifer by @Pvmoutside:. Also see the related CfD. Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect I just merged Go-away-bird. Deletion is inappropriate here and it doesn't take an AFD to make a non-controversial redirect. Reywas92Talk 19:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect Thanks Reywas92, I can't believe this has come here! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Reywas92 and Jimfbleak: Happy to see it redirected, I brought it here as I don't know enough about the subject to make a decision myself. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect Should probably do now. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 09:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jack Frost (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica di Silvestri[edit]

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

Possible violation of BLP1E and NPOV because there are no sources to balance the negative coverage. Please see article talk page for details. An IP claiming to be the person in the bio asked for the claims to be balanced. A new SPA is trying to CSD/PROD the article which I've reverted. Moving it to AfD for broader consideration after personally trying to clean it up. Vikram Vincent 19:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources may not pass WP:RS thus posing problems. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 19:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 19:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NOLYMPICS by virtue of appearing at the Olympic games and WP:GNG by virtue of the very coverage cited as a reason for deletion. Other issues can be handled via page protection and editing. WP:BLP1E does not apply to people who are notable for a single appearance in the Olympics - the Olympic guidelines make that quite clear. Arguably a speedy keep since nom hasn't actually advocated for deletion and is merely repeating the request of a WP:SPA who isn't even confirmed to be the subject. In any case, she received coverage for competing at the Olympics before the articles in question were published, and those sources are in the article as well. Not a deletion issue. Smartyllama (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Smartyllama I forgot to mention the problematic sources which may not pass RS criteria. Vikram Vincent 04:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vincentvikram That's an editing issue, not a deletion issue. She's notable independently of those sources so it's irrelevant to this AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject clearly passes WP:NOLYMPICS. But the article needs clean up. Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep in addition to WP:NOLYMPICS, it looks like she also passes WP:GNG. Additional sources not in the article currently also include ones from the New York Daily News and the NYT. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Passes WP:NOLYMPICS. LucyLucy (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • LucyLucy blocked for being a sock. Vikram 20:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can an admin please close this AFD as withdrawn. Will try to improve the article with the feedback and new sources presented here. Thanks. Vikram 17:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if that would be considered a procedural nomination since you were stating someone else's concerns, in which case it's ineligible for speedy keep. If it's not procedural, you can close it yourself as nom. However that's a moot point since it's been seven days and can be closed as plain keep. Probably eligible for an NAC but as I'm involved I can't do it myself. Smartyllama (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While one of the votes was expressed weakly and another by a user with few other edits, there is no support for an alternate outcome. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sohini Sarkar[edit]

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

Does not have enough news sources. So i think the page should be deleted. Bapinghosh (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bapinghosh (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus to not delete, but no consensus whether to keep or to merge to Society for Ecological Restoration. This can be discussed further on the talk page. Sandstein 13:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Native Plants Journal[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". DePRODded by article creator with reason "Notability is clear. NPS is a legitimate and well-regarded journal in its field". No support for this assertion is offered. PROD reason therefore still stand, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this journal is avaliable on JSTOR, so the claim of it not being indexed by a selective database is incorrect. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment JSTOR and Project MUSE are access platforms. Neither is considered a selective indexing service in the sense of WP:NJournals. Any government publication, by the way, can be included in selective indexing services (some, like MEDLINE are even government operated). --Randykitty (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Native Plants Journal is a highly referenced publication in plant biology, especially botany and horticulture. It is used across a wide array of sources and is a production of the USDA Forestry Service in collaboration with a few universities. Is it even allowed to be included in whatever selective databases you're speaking of (which ones?) when it is a government research production? As for the lack of independent sources claim, i've clearly already refuted that and i'm still working on it. SilverserenC 20:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The journal is a widely read publication and actively held in major libraries. The sourcing demonstrates its notability. Thriley (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neither of the foregoing two "keep" !votes are convincing. A few press releases are not the in-depth coverage required for GNG. The !vote just above boils down to WP:ITSNOTABLE. If this journal indeed has such an impact, then where are the sources that would go with such impact? --Randykitty (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A few press releases" ? I don't think there's any press releases in the article. Coverage in conferences and national society meetings aren't press releases. SilverserenC 22:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such announcements are absolutely routine coverage and nothing coming even close to satisfying GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is referenced in most of the "Find sources" links above, so clearly is notable. Hardyplants (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And which of those "references" constitute the in-depth coverage required by GNG? --Randykitty (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Just the first three pages of listings at Google Scholar show more than 1100 citations, and that's a tiny fraction of the published articles. This is easily enough to meet "Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area" and "Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources." Zerotalk 14:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Society for Ecological Restoration WP:TOOSOON, basically. Can be revisited once notability is actually established. The composition of the editorial board, or the notability of its published is irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can it be TOOSOON to judge a journal that is 20 years old? Also, it is obvious that having thousands of citations in other reliable sources is relevant to notability. Zerotalk 04:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please enlighten me: exactly which sources make this pass GNG? Thanks! No clue what "not paper" has to do here and if you want to "preserve" the info on this as yet non-notable journal, then follow Headbomb's suggestion to merge this to the society. --Randykitty (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is an essential and standard reference in the field. Read the article and its references. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fails verification. The source (which you added after I posed the above question) does not say anything like that, it just lists it as "reference". That's a far cry from the in-depth coverage required by GNG. Try reading it. Cheers. --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you overlooked this. Which dovetails nicely into WP:Before. So your criticism about the timing is misplaced, IMO. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you overlooked my preceding comment. Which dovetails nicely into WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Happy editing. --Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepMerge I think, Randykitty, you are overly relying on the "indexed in selective databases" criterion here. That's one option for meeting journal notability, but not the only one. Reasonably long tenure, heavy citation, and big author names also figure into it, and this has all three. Personally I remember citing the heck out of this when working on New Zealand native bush ecosystems back in the day - which may not count for much, but certainly makes me want to see a clear case of failing all three WP:JOURNALCRIT criteria before considering it non-notable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I (obviously) disagree. "Long tenure" is not a reason for notability. "Heavy citation" is relative, the figures mentioned above would be borderline for a single researcher, let alone for a whole journal. And "big names" falls afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED, of course. If this journal indeed is so significant, then why was it not picked up by selective databases. In fact, it is not even included in non-selective ones. We have absolutely nothing here, no in-depth sources (fails GNG), zero indexing (fails NJournals), modest citation counts (fails NJournals), nothing indicating any historical significance (another fail of NJournals). --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, reasonable cites. While not in the selective DBs, there is indexing - see list here. On reflection I'm probably biased in favour of the journal because I've cited it so much at one stage. Merging to the society might be the cleaner option. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks for that link, I've struck that remark (got mixed up with something else). --Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since when is being "solid" enough to be notable? If that's the case, I know a couple of million scientists that all should get a bio here. And which of the Wikidata identifiers are proof of any notability? This !vote just is another instance of WP:ILIKEIT. --Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saddened that you would dismiss my legitimate vote as you did. Shoud we dismiss all the votes that simply state "per nom", "per above" or "per user x" too? No, I don't think so. And the Identifiers I mentioned show that this journal is recognized by important journal databases such as JSTOR. G'Day, History DMZ (HQ) † (wire) 00:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I already explained, JSTOR is an access platform. It is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any notable university working with government agency such as the USDA Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the USDA Agricultural Research Service, is a notable publication. Just as we list all newspapers even if they aren't referenced by other newspapers, we list legitimate scientific publications as well. Wikipedia isn't just pop culture and politics, we have educational material also. Dream Focus 15:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just as we list all newspapers even if they aren't referenced by other newspapers: to be fair, we don't - there's specific criteria for those just like for all other types of publications.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • we list legitimate scientific publications: In the present case it may be clear that this is a legitimate publication, but often that is less clear. So are we going to decide which journals should be included and which not based upon the personal opinions of WP editors? Just as we have criteria for newspapers, so do we have criteria for academic journals. Arguing that this one is notable because it is published by a notable university and government agency flies in the face of WP:NOTINHERITED. --Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If notable universities and government agencies determine it is a legitimate scientific journal, then it is. Most people in this discussion seem to agree with this. I have no idea why you believe "not inherited" applies here. Dream Focus 15:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is incorrct to say that notable universities and government agencies have "determined" that this is notable, the university and agency publish is and you are arguing that the journal inherits its notability from its publishers. --Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These notable scientific agencies work together to publish a scientific journal. Its notable because the people in charge of researching and knowing things about it, are the ones creating it. Dream Focus 16:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're still arguing that because the publishers are notable, the journal must be notable. On my user page i have some examples of journals that were started by notable publishers and never became notable. I really don't want to do away with the principle that at least part of our articles should be based on independent RS. Without in-depth coverage or selective databases, we can't do that. --Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Society for Ecological Restoration. There doesn't appear to be much more to say about this journal than the article currently does. Not everything works as a stand-alone page; in this case, one short-ish article would be preferable over two very short ones. XOR'easter (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's kind of like an reversed WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS] argument: because those notable journals don't have an article, we should keep an article on this non-notable one. I'll take an hour later today to create sourced articles on those journals. --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the (an?) official partner journal of the society --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A partner journal isn't the same as being run by that group. Many of journals partner together, but are still unique entities. SilverserenC 23:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hanabira[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable sources to establish notability:

  • All three web sources (1,3,5) contain only trivial mentions of the article subject and it is dubious that these are reliable sources to boot.
  • Reference 2 is not directly about the article subject at all, but instead used for background on scarification in general.
  • Reference 4 is a 187 page book, no page numbers are provided, and although there is one subsection of the book on body modification in general is devoted to scarification the TOC does not mention hanabira specifically but does specifically mention other techniques. (I was unable to verify the actual prose as I don't speak german nor have a full copy of the text available)
  • Additionally failed to find alternative sources either in English or searching in Japanese for a variety of derivative terms. Allanlw 17:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Allanlw 17:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although there is limited discussion, the one "keep" argument is weak. It cites only one source about Bork, rather than by Bork: an entry by the "Militarist Monitor", which has all the hallmarks of an advocacy WP:SPS. This does not support the argument that Bork is notable because she has been covered by (rather than written for) reliable sources. Sandstein 12:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Bork[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. And notability is not inherited. KidAd talk 02:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would possibly pass WP:GNG if there are sources that her writing has been published in the The Washington Post, the Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal Asia, and The Weekly Standard as the article claims. There are no sources for this in the article, however. ExRat (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment. Did you do a proper WP:BEFORE this AfD? I just Googled her and pulled up a multitude of articles she penned for The Washington Examiner, U.S. News & World Report and several articles from The Wall Street Journal, such as this. There's also a list of articles she authored or co-authored for various publications at Muck Rack. There's also coverage of her at Militarist Monitor which includes links to articles published by The New York Times, The Weekly Standard, Financial Times, The Washington Post, Humanitarian Affairs Review, and Forward. Seems notable enough to me to keep, with her prominent roles with Project for the New American Century and as an Asia specialist for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. ExRat (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, why is it the case with some journalists that having written articles that appear in a number of newspapers/journals/magazines (allbeit wikinotable ones) apparently indicate wikinotablity for them? afterall, isn't that their job? note, i am not saying that Bork isn't notable just that we should expect their pieces being discussed/reviewed by others and/or being sought for their opinion ie. being deemed to be wikisignificant in their field of writing? just wondering. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. She outright fails my standards for lawyers, never having argued any major cases, nor done verifiable service to any bar association, nor been law review/journal/Inns of Court. She appeared exactly once on C-SPAN. There are zero newspaper articles about her on Google. Of the 255 other hits on Google News, only 45 are unique; all but three are by her, or about her parents, or are from The American Interest, which is of dubious reliability. The books on Google show a lot of hits, but almost entirely are about her father. I found one article in First Things by her, but that is it. She has 626 followers on Twitter, which is a fifth of my followers. If you find anything more, please alert me. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Maithil[edit]

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

Contested redirect. This person is clearly not notable enough for a stand-alone article and does not meet WP:GNG independently. The redirect to Mithila Student Union was contested by the article creator. All coverage of this person is trivial and he is never mentioned outside of his association with this organisation. I can't find any evidence of notability separate from Mithila Student Union. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Canyon, Kern County, California[edit]

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

Looking at the topos, they show part of a mining district which at some times shows some scattered buildings; later maps show a different name, Loraine, close by, and "Sand Canyon" as a label disappears. (FWIW Loraine on the earlier maps is located a bit to the west.) My sense is of a fairly vague locale served by a post office that moved around and had its name changed, though I can't prove that. What I do see is that searching hardly brings up anything except name drops and false hits. From what I can see it fails verification. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • note I've clarified how Loraine figures in this above. I haven't nominated it for now because, on the ground, it looks a little like a town, but from a documentation PoV it's not clear that it's a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Loraine lies within the Loraine Mining District. The Loraine Mining District includes a canyon, which was once / is called "Sand Canyon." Go see;
1. Wilkerson, Gregg. "Geology and Mining of the Kern County, Lake Isabella and Walker Basin, Kern County California". - page 132-134, 147
2. Troxel, Bonnie W. and Morton, Paul K., 1962, Mines and Mineral Resources of Kern County, California: California. Division of Mines and Geology, County Report 1.
3. Juan Dos Mines, Loraine, Loraine Mining District, Kern Co., California.
4. Bella Rufin Mine, Twin Oaks, Loraine Mining District, Kern Co., California. Paul H. (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources noted above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 16:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I don't think this is a hoax, but an unincorporated community. Google maps seems to have a "Sand Canyon road" near the "Twin Oaks Community Church". I found this link [6] which says Unincorporated communities of Bird Springs, Horse Canyon, Loraine, Sand Canyon and Twin Oaks. If I check the USGS, there is a populated place and a valley (roughly lying alongside the Sand Canyon road I can see on Google maps). I am inclined to keep it.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on others' comments and sources, it is apparently a settlement. Also, by the way, it is helpful to differentiate this vs. another notable Sand Canyon in California. The notability of both of them was discussed somewhat in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sand Canyon, Los Angeles County, California (which closed with keeping of the other one). Enough AFDs about the Sand Canyons for now, please. --Doncram (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But redirect the individual articles here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joana Hadjithomas and Khalil Joreige[edit]

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

As both members of this professional and marital duo already have their own standalone articles at Joana Hadjithomas and Khalil Joreige, it's far from clear that we would need a third article to exist about them as a duo alongside the existing articles. The other alternative would be to keep this and redirect the standalone BLPs here instead, on the grounds that they work almost exclusively as a duo and rarely if ever do anything noteworthy independently of each other -- but either way, we need either the standalone articles or this, not all three. (For comparison's sake, Lilly and Lana Wachowski have one combined article at The Wachowskis, not an article about them as a duo and then a separate BLP of each sibling alongside that.) Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Game (Queen album). Both votes and the nominator supported a redirect to the album article. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Attack[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Should be redirected to The Game (Queen album). Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

La Crisi[edit]

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

Not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced stub article about a non-notable Italian hc punk band. Tagged for notability and sources, as well for translation. The Italian article is much longer, but the sourcing isn't better there either, as the sole source is a discogs page which is no support for notability. Couldn't find any reliable sources. But as always, I am happy to be proven wrong. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Seven Seas of Rhye. Daniel (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See What a Fool I've Been[edit]

See What a Fool I've Been (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG. Should be redirected to Seven Seas of Rhye or Queen II. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, probably to Seven Seas of Rhye, but Queen II is also an acceptable possibility. Fails WP:NSONG: unremarkable single B-side, eventually added as a bonus track to a CD reissue almost two decades after its original appearance. As with other articles recently websites by a now blocked sock, this is mostly sourced to fan sites and other non-RS sites. Richard3120 (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Einherjer. Daniel (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battered (band)[edit]

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

Unnotable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article about an unnotable Norwegian thrash metal band with one demo and one studio album. Sourced solely to the web page of the subject, which is never a good sign. The sourcing isn't any better on the German and Norwegian wikis either, actually, there are no sources whatsoever, just the myspace / official page of the band. The creator of the article is blocked for copyright violations. I searched with their sole studio album and the only decent source was a Metal.de review. There were nothing else that establishes notability (well, maybe aside from the fact that the founding members were in a notable band, although only one of them has an article). So yeah, I think they are non-notable. Oh! I forgot to mention that the article is tagged for sources and notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Einherjer seems the most obvious outcome, where this band is already mentioned. \it's easy enough to verify the basic facts about the band. --Michig (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, not independently notable at this time, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. Nonsensical. Standard ethno-national provocations and fabrications fare. El_C 18:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Szekely moustache[edit]

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

Not notable - unable to find sources indicating this is a notable topic, unless such sources exist in Hungarian. If it does happen to be notable, I would argue that it would better fit somewhere under Székelys. Apologies if I picked the wrong categories, I have trouble figuring out which a moustache would belong to.

It is referenced in this paper, but I don't see enough coverage to warrant an independent article.  A S U K I T E   14:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  A S U K I T E   14:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  A S U K I T E   14:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. Borsoka (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Current unref article is a load of turd. Doing a WP:Before all I can find is a small mention in a research article about Szekely Gates, and another about heraldry so no sign on SIGCOV. Delete and lif refs can be found it can be started again, we won't be losing much.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - articles about supposed ethnic stereotypes should always be backed up by reliable sources, for obvious reasons. There appears to be a pattern of concern building on some of these Székely-related articles that don't follow NPOV. It seems "Székely" + "Bajusz" does come up with a lot of images but I'm not sure that there are enough WP:RS going into detail about this subject. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trash page. Borsoka and KIENGIR, I think something has to be done about this troll. I think he should be reported. Super Ψ Dro 15:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a sockpuppet investigation against him. He is obviously Hortobagy's sock. Borsoka (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've much earlier draw the attention of this dangerous trolling, recently I noticed more pages has been vandalized. Super Dromaeosaurus, as you may see, Borsoka already have made a step.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, trash, not article. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SKCRIT#1, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Harper (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm finding coverage. Please hold off on voting or stay posted for updates. Being in the original cast of an Arthur Miller play is no small thing. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG (several feature articles) and NACTOR's calling for multiple roles in notable productions (cast of television shows Frank's Place and Philly; original stage production of An American Clock, the film Creepshow). I have added a number of references from which the article could be expanded. I will add more as time allows. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DiamondRemley39. He had several notable acting roles as well as non-trivial news coverage. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the scope of his roles as an actor as backed up by reliable and verifiable sources meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes the WP:GNG. Probably also WP:NACTOR #1. gidonb (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. DoctorsHub (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I withdraw this nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyunjoon King[edit]

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

No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. Also fails every criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. SK2242 (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Perri[edit]

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

In spite of remarkable levels of Internet celebrity, she appears to fail to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. The original Spanish-language article is based mostly on a single interview in adultdvdtalk.com, which Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography characterizes as a self-published site. -- The Anome (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just enough notability asserted to avoid an A7 speedy. No claim of WP:BASIC or WP:ENT notability supported by available RS coverage. An independent search yielded only trivial mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did a basic cleanup on the article. The AVN citation I added is an obvious press release, with no effect on notability. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At this time, Perri doesn’t meet notability guidelines to have an article. Trillfendi (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly doesn't meet any notability guideline. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. DoctorsHub (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nominator.-Tushar.ghone (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no assertion of notability and no RS per a BEFORE. —Kbabej (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to withdrawal by nominator. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farahnaz Forotan[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist. Article was remove twice before. No refund requested The Banner talk 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been expanded and improved since its first nomination back in 2016, when WP:GNG and WP:PROMO were cited as the main concerns. In 2020, during the Afghan peace talks, Forotan proceeded to collect testimonies and start a campaign that both received the recognition of the United Nations and important coverage, unlike previously, including from The New York Times, The Guardian and Le Monde. The same happened after she left Afghanistan. I should also mention that by receiving the "Journalist in the Country" national award she should meet WP:ANYBIO, which includes this as a criteria for notability.
If I may, I'll note that I did ask for a WP:REFUND some time ago. (Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 342#Farahnaz Forotan). --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just added a 2019 New York Times reference that discusses Forotan's social media campaign and provides context; while this article could be expanded based on additional sources that exist (e.g. BBC, September 7, 2020, AFP April 21, 2019, Reuters, April 4, 2019), it meets WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is clearly notable receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. She is also "notable" in that papers like the New York Times have taken note of her activity, plus the awards, the firsts, etc. -- GreenC 17:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as others have said. Article is better than it was at previous AFD in 2016. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I can not see the older versions but I agree that by now she is notable. Request speedy close as keep. The Banner talk 21:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - She has perform notability and passes GNG. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Constitution Party (United States)#2020 presidential election. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Mohr[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has run for political office many times, has lost every race. Most refs are by summaries of candidates or election results, only one WP:RS about the candidate himself.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingofthedead is the primary editor for this article. Constitution is not a major 3rd party. It's not even called that in Michigan (U.S. Taxpayers Party). There was virtually no WP:RS independent media coverage, certainly not in listed his article. But the articles you've mentioned would also be good candidates, I'll nominate them, too. Thanks.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be interested in politics, good. Wikipedia is one of the best resources for getting information about a politician, something you can't find anywhere else. I'm not sure what the purpose of actively getting rid of that sort of information does besides make it much harder for people interested in politics (such as us) to find things out. Kingofthedead (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Politician" would indicate some level of expertise. If we rid the article of all the non-reliable sources (the party website, the self-reporting, the single issue Ballot Access News 1-person blog) there wouldn't really be enough for even a stub. WP:RS reporting seems to be a listing of all candidates, showing few votes, down below the margin of error of people accidentally marking the wrong entry. This is not so much a "politician" as a self-important gadfly, who likes to see his own name on a ballot. As for me being interested in politics, I've been involved at every level, from volunteer to campaign manager, precinct delegate to congressional. I'd like to see more substantive content, and fewer WP:ADVOCACY articles.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Molucca Sea earthquakes[edit]

2019 Molucca Sea earthquakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing resulted from the earthquake's aftermath, no deaths, injuries or damage. Not notable even towards the scientific community. WP:NOTNEWS Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus to delete, seems to be in need of some serious cleanup. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 23:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Reformed College and Seminary[edit]

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

I can't find any decent coverage outside of primary sources and routine database listings for this school; does not apparently meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. The article was possibly created for promotional purposes as it appears that it was created by the school's president, Rev. Dr. James A. Lee. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The institution is a candidate for accreditation by a recognized, legitimate accreditor so it's not entirely fictional, unknown, or illegitimate. It was admitted to candidacy in 2019 and it may be accredited in 2023 after a 2022 review. We typically keep articles about accredited institutions, even if they are rather small and not well known, but I am unsure if that same logic should extend to institutions that are only candidates for accreditation. ElKevbo (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is clearly a small tertiary college offering theological training. Colleges offering only such courses tend to be small, but their small size does not imply that they are insignificant. I would however be happier if we had an indication of student numbers. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For context regarding WP:COI and promotional history behind the article's creation, see the user's talk page [7] and attempts to create what appears to be an autobiographical entry. None of which mitigates against keeping the article, but may be relevant to our understanding. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as it does have some Korean newspaper coverage and seminaries are usually kept, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Nemeth[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN Theroadislong (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on [8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The promotional language can be fixed. But the lack of evidence of notability can't, as far as I can tell. Maproom (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He's been plugging away for many years with a lot of albums, but unless he got into hardcopy books early in his career, he has practically no reliable media coverage. Various activities and releases have been noted by other musicians in social media chatter, and he has some self-promotions, but he will have to be happy as a behind-the-scenes journeyman. This WP article is clearly an attempted promotion to generate session work, and probably copied from his own websites and social media pages. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We should check for hardcopies and print sources first before coming to a consensus, just to be sure. This is because a lot of the previous comments have pointed to lack of internet sources, but the subject was performing before the popularization of the internet. There could very well be newspaper coverage or the like that didn't make its way to the web. Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gwella'r erthygl, peidiwch â'i dileu. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nia Caron[edit]

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

Does not have significant notable roles to satisfy WP:NACTOR. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 11:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 11:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 11:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 11:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Page has been updated WITH soucres. No need to delete. 148.252.132.50
  • Keep Notable actress in a notable series.† Encyclopædius 18:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unanimous agreement here even when discounting the sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something untrustworthy (Book)[edit]

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

PROD contested without providing a reason. The subject fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails WP:NBOOK. The article appears to have been written by the author of the book, so it also feels quite a bit like WP:SPIP. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per everyone. As the only reference is a promo page for the book, I see no reason this can't be g11. 174.254.192.112 (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But refashion as an article about the village Spartaz Humbug! 08:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamand Gram Panchayat[edit]

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

Gram Panchayats are village self-governence body. There are over 250,000 Gram Panchayats in India. There is no point in having independent Wikipedia articles for each any every GPs unless they are notable. RationalPuff (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • India is a democracy with 3 levels of governance: central, state and panchayat. India is largely rural, with about 900m people living in rural areas (compared to about 15m rural pop. in the US). Since India has such a large rural population -- 68% of its total -- its villages and their governance are important. With 600,000 villages and 250,000 gram panchayats, the average population served by a GP is ~3,600. For perspective, New York State has 534 villages with an average population of 3,524. Every one of these 534 villages has an article in Wikipedia. List of villages in New York (state) This includes villages with pop. < 100, such as Dering Harbor, New York with pop. 11.
    Kamand GP serves a population of about 3,000 (2011 Census). Likely to be 3,500 today, extrapolating from Demographics of India. More importantly, Kamand GP borders IIT Mandi which is a technological university of global importance. Kamand GP includes the two villages at the entrances to IIT Mandi South and North Campuses.
    As Wikipedia is online, there is no problem per se with 250,000 pages, provided they are properly categorised. At present there are just a handful of GP pages, categorised by state. As the number grows, the categorisation can be changed to district-wise. --Tagooty (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What you stated above is content for Gram panchayat. Feel free improve Gram panchayat rather than creating tons of other articles that essentially says the same thing with the exception of name of the place it linked to. A village and its governce body are not the same thing. GPs need to meet WP:NORG. Simply establishing it exists is not enough. RationalPuff (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Kamand, Himachal Pradesh, per WP:NGEO. A gram panchayat is a local administration body, based at a village, and serving a cluster of villages around it. It should always be integrated with the page for the main village. There is no need for a separate page on the panchayat itself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case it wasn't clear, my !vote was to Keep the article after retitling it, as per WP:NGEO/WP:GEOLAND. All other issues can be discussed on the article talk page. They are not for this forum. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Kamand, Himachal Pradesh per Kautilya3's rationale. Kamand village is a populated and legally recognized place, hence meets WP:GEOLAND. p. 218 number 015566. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RandomPuff: @Kautilya3: Thanks for the clarifications and suggestions. The guidelines you've cited are very useful to me.
    I propose to change the name of the article to "Kamand village, Mandi district". There are Kamand villages in adjacent Kullu and Kangra districts in Himachal, hence the qualifier "Mandi district".
    The article will have a section "Governance (Gram Panchayat Kamand)" with the current content, plus sections about the village: "Description", "Education", "Demographics", "Transport", "History", "Gallery". I will make the changes within 72 hours. I hope that this addresses the concern and the discussion can be closed favourably. --Tagooty (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, qualifying with "Mandi district" is perfectly fine. However, I don't think "village" is needed in the page title unless it is needed for some other disambiguation. See, e.g., Una, Himachal Pradesh. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the article creator now has renamed the article. But it need be made contextual. Also there are loads of unsourced content particularly related to the GP and its members. You simply can't have these unless you back it up with relevant references. RationalPuff (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RationalPuff: @Kautilya3: I have removed the GP members section until I can get authentic references. This makes the various sections more balanced. I've added some references for content on the village. Will keep improving as I get further references.
    @RationalPuff: Could you explain what you mean by "But it need be made contextual"?
    As the notability issue is taken care of, I request that the AFD notice be removed. --Tagooty (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Assam cricketers as an alternative to deletion. If new sources are found, as hinted at in the discussion, they can certainly be added. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 23:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umananda Bora[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing about them in sources. Störm (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - given that Bora died relatively young, and within the digital age, I wonder if there is anything about him in print media that we won't have immediate access to. Just a thought. Bobo. 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not at all a passing of GNG. What is this about Bora dieing? The article says he is alive? Am I missing something?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange. I looked up the profile of the user who added the Living people category and can't see anything about them that would be regarded as suspicious - although it is interesting that they have barely edited since 2013. Bobo. 21:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing suspicious about following Wikipedia BLP policy and assuming people are living unless stated otherwise. Anyway, I have updated the article per the source given. wjematherplease leave a message... 21:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm equally as suspicious of people who would rather send articles to AfD than expand them to their satisfaction. *shrug* Well, you can't win them all. Bobo. 21:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expand them from what exactly? Significant coverage simply doesn't seem to exist in almost every case that has been nominated. wjematherplease leave a message... 21:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my question to answer. Anyway, my original point about printed non-Internet material still stands. Bobo. 21:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Assam cricketers - there is no evidence that this cricketer passes GNG so the article should be redirected. No prejudice against creating it again in the future if sources are ever found. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eleonora, Princess of Ligne[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. DrKay (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Private citizen whose only connection to notability is her ancestry. Sourcing does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability isn't inherited, and I can find no indication that she is notable in her own right. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even remotely close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Illinois Soccer League[edit]

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

Non-notable soccer local soccer league, no evidence of notability. JayJayWhat did I do? 06:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 06:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 06:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing special, fails GNG. Govvy (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. Delete. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I couldn't find any decent, independent coverage. No real assertion of notability either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of any notability. GiantSnowman 11:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing all seems to be websites controlled by the organization, nothing at all even remotely suggesting notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Zodiac Killer#Public speculation. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of the Zodiac Killer[edit]

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

{{notability}} tag posted since January 26, 2021. Talk page discussion at Talk:The Myth of the Zodiac Killer#Notability tag appears to suggest that article fails WP:Notability (books). Edge3 (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zodiac Killer#Public speculation - Quite simply, the book itself is not notable. Of the sources presented in the current article, only the Mel Magazine and El Confidencial articles could be considered to be significant coverage at all. The rest of the sources are either not about the book/author at all and just about the Zodiac Killer (most of them), not secondary (the interviews and the book itself) or just a one-sentence mention (the ABC article). And while the two sources that are actually relevant do talk extensively on the author and his theories, they really do not talk much about the book itself at all. The Mel Magazine article, which is the single most extensive article on the author, does not even mention the book. I tried searching for any possible reviews or other coverage in reliable source that could actually fulfil WP:NBOOK, and was unable to find anything. I do think the coverage on Horan's theories warrants it at least being mentioned in the appropriate section of the main Zodiac Killer article, which it already is, but there is nothing to indicate that his self-published book on them garnered enough notability to justify an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Zodiac Killer#Public speculation. I spent a while thinking about this one; I don't think the sourcing can support a stand-alone article, but both the hypothesis and the most notable-to-date book revolving around it deserve mention elsewhere. I don't think the sourcing is quite as bad as Rorschacma does (we differ on the value of interviews), and I think there's content here that shouldn't be lost in a redirect and would fit well into the primary article. I also think it's possible it could be re-split at some point if thoughts on the book's notability change, so I'd rather err on the side of caution. Ultimately: doesn't warrant an article, does warrant discussion. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per my comments on the article talk. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is clearly no consensus to delete. There are numerous options for improvement/merger/renaming/restructure and AfD is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MacBook Air (M1)[edit]

MacBook Air (M1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Provides no additional value over the corresponding section in MacBook Air, except for the brief section "Reception"; however, the "Reception" headline is in use within MacBook Air for other models as well, i.e. may be included within the corresponding section. Andibrema (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Andibrema (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Andibrema (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment Y'know, given my spate of articles on small town businesses, I'm surprised this is the article that winds up getting put up for deletion. Go figure.Americanfreedom (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article will get bigger later. To justify it further we should rename this to “MacBook Air (Apple Silicon) and make the original “MacBook Air (Intel)”. No new Intel models will ever be released. And new apple silicon chips will come out in the future. Maybe we should delete the Apple silicon section of the original. Subscribe to me (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion to split Apple silicon from the current page is in discussion at Talk:MacBook Pro. There is currently no consensus to support the split. Andibrema (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to Apple Silicon. It wouldn't make sense to start a new article for every new processor especially if it's only a spec bump like the Mac product line has historically received. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but change the page heirarchies. The iMac page currently has the 'master' page, and then links to smaller pages based on different architectures, with a seperate page for Intel-based Macs as opposed to PPC. A master MacBook Air page would make the most sense with general descriptions, but the specific models should be on seperate pages. I think the iMac pages should be used as a template, but currently it's just annoying to go to another page for one device Server 686 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move. I like the ideas that Shivertimbers433 and Server 686 have put forth. While I hear the counterargument about the split at MacBook Pro, the difference is that we've already made the split and I remember an overall sentiment at that discussion that an eventual split should occur so it doesn't make sense to go backwards and delete this article. We should keep this article as it is and rename it to Apple Silicon, and create a hierarchy of pages with notable models. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with MacBook Air. Reception and reviews can go to Apple M1 -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hog Farm Talk 22:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Chomsky Reader[edit]

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

Notability. Promotional. Also tagged since 2012 yet issues have still not been addressed, it's more like a hit piece using a list of cherry-picked quotes, not sure why it has lasted this long, it's nothing more than a soapbox. Acousmana (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes GNG/NBOOKS. For better or worse, "de facto soapbox" alone is not a deletion criterion. The issues the article is tagged for are ones resolved via ordinary editing rather than deletion. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Still looking, but it's worth highlighting that this is a self-published book. One of the authors runs the conservative publisher. There doesn't look to be much coverage outside of the conservative media bubble. Still looking for mainstream reviews (in popular or academic press), which may exist. The New Criterion piece might be the best we have thus far (written by Keith Windschuttle). Certainly the article as-is needs work, but that doesn't mean deletion. Pending finding more sources, I'm leaning weak delete at this point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't think the self-published status is particularly relevant. Self-published books can be notable — for instance I have created two articles on self-published books that I think are notable, by virtue of their multiple published reviews, Adventures Among the Toroids and Divine Proportions: Rational Trigonometry to Universal Geometry. In this case, the question should be whether there is an adequate number of in-depth independent published sources about the book (such as reviews) and whether we have enough of a broad spectrum of opinion to make an adequately WP:NPOV article, just as it would be for a conventionally published book. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's another review at doi:10.1007/BF02802991. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The purpose of WP is not to host book reviews. The test is whether this book is notable. It appears to be a collection of academic essays opposing the views of Chomsky. There is a host of collections of academic essays in books. When I have sought to access individual essays in such works my experience is that very few libraries actually hold a copy. The article is on a book with a POV. This makes it difficult for the article to present a NPOV on the underlying topic, but that is not a reason for deletion, if the article provides a fair account of the book. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Vogel[edit]

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

Potentially notable, but no real sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 18:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. Jayasekera[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Another initial-only name that wasn't caught in the first pass. Bobo. 20:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sign of notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I hadn't actually realized that his biographical details had been added since I created the article. This information was added as far back as December 2017 which must mean this information has been available since then. Bobo. 21:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asleep Next to Science[edit]

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

The band article, which included this album, was redirected to Ashley Ellyllon due to lack of references. By similarity, this article would not have enough references to exist outside of the Ashley Ellyllon article. Jax 0677 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm confused... barely a month ago you were supporting the creation of an article for the band... now you are supporting deletion of their album? Not having a band article doesn't automatically mean the album article can't exist, especially when it appears to have been reviewed in at least three reliable sources. I don't see the similarity you are talking about, to be honest. Richard3120 (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - If the band article does not have enough references when the album article is included, how can the album article have enough references? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the same thing, though – we can have three good references about the album, but those three references don't give us any biographical information about the band, only about the album, so they're not particularly useful for a band article. I'm looking to see if I can find an archive copy of the Alternative Press review – that would give us three definite good sources for the album, and I'd put money on Prog having reviewed it as well. Richard3120 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Using a "top down" approach, information about the songs is often information about the album, and information about songs and albums is often information about those who created them. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I can't really understand the nominator's comment that this article doesn't have enough references to exist by itself, when there are two sourced independent reviews already there in the article, the indication that a third one exists in print form (it doesn't appear to have been archived, unfortunately), and there are two more reviews at Sputnikmusic which are acceptable as they are written by "Emeritus" reviewers [9], [10]... there's another possibly acceptable review at Dead Press as well [11] but I'm not so sure about this being an RS. There's also a track-by-track explanation of the album in Alternative Press [12]... yes, this is WP:PRIMARY, but it can be used for factual information about the origin of the band's name and what each track is about (let's face it, any source explaining what a song is about almost certainly comes directly from the writer(s) anyway, as they are the only ones who truly know). There does seem to be plenty of information available about this album even on the internet, and very likely more in print form. The fact that the band does not at present have its own article does not preclude the album having an article – WP:NALBUM states: "an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline". Richard3120 (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - @Richard3120:, if the band article does not have enough references when the album article is included, how can the album article have enough references? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Errr... I've just shown you how it can have enough references, by actually finding them? Richard3120 (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - "Information about songs and albums is often information about those who created them". --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely don't know what you mean by that response. It's true that no band article often means that their albums are also not notable, but not always. These six sources above are clearly about the album. I do think the band is probably notable, but at present there doesn't seem to be enough information from the sources to be able to create a decent article about the band, but if you think there is, then the band article can be recreated. Richard3120 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Often times, information about an album by a band can be used as information about the band, which is the case here, just like 3YH and MC Luscious. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you keep saying it, but it clearly isn't the case here, as all six sources are specifically about the album... and I'm not sure what the WP:OSE argument has to do with it. Anyway, we clearly disagree, so I will say no more and let other editors decide. Richard3120 (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - [Information about album] + [information about artist who created album] > [Information about album]. Orbs is the PRIMARY artist on the album. If information about albums and songs is not information about the artist/ensemble, then why is it in the artist/ensemble article? The 3YH and MC Luscious albums are based primarily on their songs and albums. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I usually agree with the tradition of deleting an album article if the band does not have an article, but in this case (thanks to Richard3120 above) the album has reliable reviews. In fact there is enough useful coverage of the album that some of it could inform a revived article on Orbs (band). A band article existed before being redirected to Ashley Ellyllon in December (see this). Jax0677, the nominator here, apparently disagreed with that move and placed a "split" proposal at Ellyllon's article. Now Jax is lobbying for the article to be deleted, apparently for procedural reasons, but that contradicts the desire to revive the band article. The album qualifies for inclusion here and its media coverage could very well support the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the current placement of full information about this album in the middle of Ellyllon's article is very awkward. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: absolutely, there's more text about this album than there is about Ellyllon herself... however, I was waiting on the outcome of this AfD before removing it: if the decision is to delete the album article, then some of the sources in Ellyllon's article may need to be kept. Richard3120 (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Once a notable article is created, there is no limit to the amount of information that the article may contain. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I waited one month to split the band article from Ellyllon's article, but I was reverted almost immediately. According to WP:G4, Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". The material about the album was not added to Orbs (band) until after the AFD was concluded. I assume, however, that I am confined by WP:BRD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia:Deletion review there is a process in which one can argue that a previously deleted article should be recreated because the subject's notability has improved. That is discussion-oriented rather than pure procedure. I see that this was already done once for Orbs (band) but it wasn't a very robust discussion at the time. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I agree, that "it wasn't a very robust discussion". The poorly attended AFD for Orbs was relisted 3 times, which is not good practice. On a side note, I requested closure of the split discussion, but formal closure was not entertained. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominator failed to do a WP:BEFORE and instead resorts into his typical if-then statements. The album has received some coverage, including the sources indicated by Richard3120. The article needs a little clean-up by fixing the sources. Other than that, it easily passes WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and there should probably be a discussion on the project page. There have been a few times when I've considered creating an album article despite there not being a corresponding band article, but have always been unsure of this "rule"--or as Doomsdayer writes, "tradition"... Caro7200 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:A9 in the Speedy Delete rules. That rule indicates that an album article should be deleted if the musician has no article... unless there is a credible claim of significance. I think this reasoning leaks into AfD discussions like this in a confusing way. Personally, I assume that if the musician is not notable, then neither is their album. But in the past I have nominated album articles for deletion with this logic, but others voted to keep because the album received pro reviews etc. In that case the solution is to create an article for the musician, which I actually did once after being overturned on deleting an album. That appears to be the solution here for Orbs (band). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hog Farm Talk 22:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HuddleCamHD[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to meet WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search turns up nothing but a plethora of user generated sources which we do not consider reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Wrong venue.. Try again. (non-admin closure) Regards, SONIC678 00:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Robert[edit]

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

This redirect is meant to refer to one of Robbie Rotten's disguises, it's pretty ambiguous and can refer to any chef named Robert (several of whom have Wikipedia pages). Plus, Robert doesn't seem to list any of the people mentioned as chefs, so I'm not sure about retargeting there. As such, I suggest we either delete this or retarget it wherever appropriate. Regards, SONIC678 00:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Apex[edit]

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

An "up-and-coming" rapper who clearly has an extremely well-oiled promotion machine, but little coverage that has not been obviously paid for. There's one full-length independent article that is good coverage [13] (which is probably why it's used in three separate refs). The other stuff has "promotional feature" written all over it - via Carhartt or Novation, or by-the-numbers interview. Plus the usual smattering of two-paragraph video blurbs. No charting to offset any of this. - Sorry for the tone, but sometimes this constant abuse of WP as an advertising platform just ticks me off. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: it doesn't really matter who added what to the article at which point - it's the totality of sources that makes or breaks notability. Here's the complete rundown and how I'd assess them for the purpose of establishing notability:
  • 1 Green tickY Crack article - good, independent coverage
  • 2 same as 1
  • 3 Red XN promotional feature - artist is signed with Carhartt
  • 4 Red XN promo interview, just an open platform for the artist
  • 5 Red XN press release
  • 6 Red XN promo interview, and in-house
  • 7 Red XN listing
  • 8 Red XN press release
  • 9 Green tickY album review
  • 10 Red XN press release
  • 11 Red XN press release
  • 12 Red XN promotional feature - artist is signed with Novation
  • 13 Red XN listing (and no award}}
  • 14 Green tickY/Red XN halfway between a listing and something usable, I'd say
  • 15 Red XN press release
  • 16 Red XN press release
  • 17 Red XN blurb
Seems borderline to me, and on the wrong side. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with an in-depth interview in a magazine as a source, how would you define a "promo interview" as opposed to an acceptable one? And yeah, he probably has been paid by those independently notable companies to create content for their blogs - isn't that in itself notable? Maybe the Novation source is a promotion for their equipment a little, but the Carharrt one there's not even a link to buy clothes he just talks about his music. The point is, he most likely didn't pay these companies to blog about him - they wanted him involved in the product for their image, which makes it a relevant source and notable imo. Some of those press release sources aren't top quality sources I will agree with you on that, but I was going overboard because I do strongly feel he meets notability requirements and I didn't want to completely scrap another editor's additions either. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 18:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit) Thanks to GnomingStuff, and another French source I found, I've added another two in-depth pieces about Lord Apex to the article's references. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 15:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Hello! As the creator of the article, I can assure you it wasn't my intention to be promotional. I tried to use a neutral tone without saying things like "up and coming". I can't speak for the second editor, although judging by the tone of their additions I wouldn't be surprised if they are somehow involved with the artist. Personally, I just like their music and think they are deserving of a Wikipedia page. Would you feel more inclined to accept the article if I fixed some of their edits to make them less "promotional"? Crack, Complex and Carharrt all covering this guy seems pretty notable to me - plus I've literally seen his face on billboards in my city (London) over the past month. He's just as big as Greentea Peng, who I also wrote about and no-one has deleted - he just doesn't get coverage in broadsheet newspapers. Thanks, The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 02:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spaghetti. This raises an interesting issue with promotional articles and WP:BEFORE -- it's important to discern how intertwined the promotion is with the article itself. Considering how much spam there is it's understandable to get frustrated and take shortcuts, but good faith is always important. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 3 WP:SIGCOV reliable independent sources are good enough. SK2242 (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing is not tug-of-war. The existence of press releases does not nullify the existence of reliable sources; Complex in particular is one of the largest rap publications currently. I also am dubious on the distinction being drawn between a "promo interview" and a regular one -- virtually every artist interview or profile coincides with their having an album or song to promote. At any rate, here's another one (in French): https://intrld.com/on-a-parle-supply-an-demand-new-york-et-sensei-avec-lord-apex/ Gnomingstuff (talk)
Good source, and that's actually a nice example of an interview that is not a pure promotion platform: the interviewer asks actual researched questions. Compare 4, which is merely a boilerplate to give the interviewee a space to expound their own merits. There's a pretty clear difference, and it's a distinction that has to be drawn when assessing the significance of coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boilerplate questions are not necessarily an indicator of a "promo interview." Perhaps the publication already ran all the longer Q&As its budget allowed for that month. Perhaps some content was cut for space. Perhaps it was an email interview compared to a phoner or in-person. Perhaps the one writer is simply better at interviewing people. Whether the resulting coverage is "significant" is a valid question but separate from the interview being "promo" -- something that would describe virtually any interview or feature in any music publication no matter the length, since these are, by nature, facilitated by publicists as a way for artists to promote their new music, . Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elton Deda[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage and additional citations since December 2011.Lorik17 (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamet Tartari[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Notability tag since October 2011; Orphan article since March 2012;No significant coverage.Lorik17 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qazim Ademi[edit]

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

Article lacks of good refs and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. There is also no significant coverage. Lorik17 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B2N[edit]

B2N (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks of good refs and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. No significant coverage. Lorik17 (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tagged for multiple issues, no sources cited for a BLP, there's no article about him on the Albanian WP, couldn't find anything that establishes notability, and the article was created by a COI editor (more precisely, the subject himself since "B2N Beats" wrote the article). None of these are good things, but the worst thing of them all is the fact that this managed to stay here since 2016. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to meeting our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity article about someone clearly nowhere near passing GNG or NMUSICIAN; deletion is long overdue here Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qamili i Vogël[edit]

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

Article lacks of good refs and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidrit Bejleri[edit]

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

Article lacks of good refs and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tedi Papavrami[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. 'BLP sources' tagged since June 2010. Lorik17 (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donika Rudi[edit]

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

Article has multiple issues, lacks of good refs and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. No significant coverage that establishes notability. Lorik17 (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Bon Band[edit]

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

The article has multiple issues, lacks of good refs and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Nothing important has been added to the article since its creation in 2014. Lorik17 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to meeting our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asgjë Sikur Dielli[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, lacks of good refs and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. 'Refimprove' tag since October 2007. Lorik17 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_February_13&oldid=1008565839"