Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 13 February 15 >

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 redirect to Royal Academy of Fine Arts (KASK). Sandstein 07:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Color Biolab[edit]

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

Do not see how this page passes GNG or WP:NORG. Looked for suitable sources, but couldn't find any. There is a Dutch language barrier at play. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 23:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 23:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 23:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 23:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect into Royal Academy of Fine Arts (KASK). The target is notable and contains this lab or project. Target should be renamed but that is a separate procedure. I have no objection to a merge either, just did not find any important texts in this article that are missing in the target. gidonb (talk) 02:34, 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 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 03:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AppsVillage[edit]

AppsVillage (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:NCORP; coverage is not in-depth and rather promotional. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: this is rather spammy, and there are no good sources in the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 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 Skimming (fraud). Sandstein 07:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming (casinos)[edit]

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

Redundant with Skimming (fraud), into which substantive information has been added White 720 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eng Leong Medallic Industries[edit]

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

2016 No Consensus. I looked into the sources mentioned in that AfD and while the firm does get mentioned for making the medals for the South-east Asian games and other competitions, there is no in depth, significant coverage to meet notability guidelines.This includes the ones archived at the national library. Books sources are limited to directories. It's a long running, successful family business, but no evidence it's notable. StarM 00:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. https://web.archive.org/web/20150828051437/http://elm.com.sg/news-updates/ lists coverage in:
      1. 2011 - AFFLUENT MAGAZINE
      2. 2011 - AFFLUENT
      3. 2011 JULY - CHINA DAILY
      4. 2006 JULY - THE BUSINESS TIMES
      5. 2006 JULY - THE STRAITS TIMES
      6. 1997 SEPTEMBER - THE STRAITS TIME
    2. Chan, Jurena (2006-07-11). "Having a ball decorating people - But that's not enough for Eng Leong, which is venturing into new areas that it deems a logical extension". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-01. Retrieved 2021-02-01.

      The article notes:

      IMAGINE having royalty and state leaders as your loyal customers. Wouldn't dream of it, you might say.

      Well, not so for Eng Leong Medallic Industries Pte Ltd (ELM); meeting kings, queens and high-ranking officials is all in a day's work for them.

      This 38-year-old company, which has over 50 years of experience in making medals, has now not only ventured into the jewellery business, but also the defence business. In 2000, it established ELS Defence Equipment Pte Ltd, which supplies defence and security equipment to government bodies and uniformed groups.

    3. Kong, Lau Fook (1997-09-13). "Medal making has become a $5m business". The Straits Times.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Eng Leong Medallic Industries to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment none of them is significantly in depth per my view and I'm not sure you acquire notability from your customers, but hopefully others can find more if it exists. StarM 14:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I trimmed some large un sourced sections. The Internet archive link mentioned above (this one) does have some good local coverage. However, after 11 years this page is largely a company-listing-slash-product-advertisement. You could argue NCORP is weakly met, and you could also argue that the coverage is run of the mill local. I'll say delete as given the state of the article after 11 years,and the low likelihood of improvement, it violates WP:NOTPROMOTION. Possibly (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per sources mention by Cunard. Pilean (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the recent RfC at WP:N (not closed yet but it is clear what the consensus is) it is not enough to say that the references meet WP:GNG and ignore the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organisations and companies. So that means we look for references that aren't part of a company's PR echo-chamber - no article based entirely on announcements, financial reports, interviews, etc. We require Independend Content as per WP:ORGIND. None of the references I can locate meet the requirements for establishing notability and none of the Keep !votes are provided any reasoning relative to WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 16:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:01, 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 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 03:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bassboxxx[edit]

Bassboxxx (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. Tagged for notability since 2014; unsourced (except for one primary source) since its creation in 2009. The only significant coverage I can find is this article in German hiphop magazine Juice, but that's not enough. A handful of notable artists were associated with the label, but notability isn't inherited. Lennart97 (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:11, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheppina Evaru Nammaru[edit]

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

Not sure this is notable. The cites in the article are routine coverage, and WP:BEFORE failed to find anything that demonstrated GNG/NFILM. I don't speak Telugu, which is holding me back from declaring this at PROD confidence, though when working with previous Indian cinema I've found English-language reviews. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, considering the release date. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've run a Telugu-language search, but could not find any decent sources. Films with non-notable cast/crew may not receive coverage unless they are exceptional. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not apparently pass WP:NFILM as the only coverage seems to be routine press releases which do not confer notability. If the Telugu search above didn't yield anything decent then it's hard to see a reason for keeping this. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not apparently pass WP:NFILM/WP:GNG. I wasn't able to find a single news article dedicated to the film. Kolma8 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Alex-h (talk) 10:49, 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catnip, Kentucky[edit]

Catnip, Kentucky (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 don't think this one meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. GNIS entry is sourced to some sort of USGS Mapping Center Report, and Rennick's Jessamine County directory only mentions a Catnip Hill Road, but no Catnip community. There is no entry in his index for Catnip. Topographic maps show the coordinates as being along the railroad, but the name Catnip does not appear on any of the maps. Newspapers.com results in Jessamine County papers are for the Catnip Hill Road and the Catnip Hill Pike. Further WP:BEFORE brings up more references to the road, but this in the main thing I can find referring to an actual place known as catnip. That just says it was a railroad point with no post office. The stuff at the site now appears to just be sprawl from Lexington. This doesn't seem to be a notable place. Hog Farm Talk 20:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 20:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 20:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I see essentially the same, plus a reference to a benchmark on the railroad viaduct, and that's about it. It appears to be a somewhat misconstrued railroad point with no town around it. Mangoe (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above reasoning by Hog Farm and Mangoe Paul H. (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable town stub. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:51, 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 delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgeous Entertainment[edit]

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

NCORP fail. Sourcing consists of largely trivial mentions. (Also appears to be part of a walled garden of Wolk-related articles: see, for example, Michael Wolk, Wolk Transfer Company and All for One Theater) Possibly (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:38, 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 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 03:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wolk Transfer Company[edit]

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

WP:NCORP fail. Possibly (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:38, 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 03:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vachette Pathology[edit]

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

Small private company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:ORGCRIT. No indication of being notable. scope_creepTalk 19:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete seems like a business practice that might have shifted the industry, but I can find no evidence that it did. Just founder name drops. StarM 03:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: only trivial mentions in the two sources that could have proved notability (cap). The sources also don't reference the company very much either, the CEO is only quoted. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent laser speckle classification[edit]

Intelligent laser speckle classification (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 is supported only by refs from a single source who appears to be also the author of the article. Very strong conflict of interest and no independent sources quoted. The Photonics source is a direct quotation of the author;s original work including image and diagram. This appears to be totally self aggrandisement. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   19:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NOR. All the references are to papers by Orun, who created the article. Maproom (talk) 22:56, 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. Nomination withdrawn with no delete suggestions. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Love (2002 film)[edit]

Book of Love (2002 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite a review from Variety, it has no other significant coverage. Needs two or more significant sources to pass WP:NFO and/or WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shivers, Kaia N. "The Book of Love: The Definitive Reason Why Men Are Dogs." Los Angeles Sentinel; Los Angeles, Calif. [Los Angeles, Calif]03 Dec 1998: B, 4:1. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excerpt from Los Angeles Daily News. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems the film was somewhat highly anticipated. There is coverage about the film being in distribution hell, such as:
    • Shivers, Kaia. Black Hollywood Tidbits. Los Angeles Sentinel; Los Angeles, Calif. [Los Angeles, Calif]07 Oct 1999: B6. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the reviews are sufficient for film notability guidelines. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for adding the review from the Los Angeles Sentinel. I withdraw the nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:23, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vidar Bahus[edit]

Vidar Bahus (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 PROD: "this guy has over 100 games in the top tier of Norway so this isn't an uncontroversial deletion, AfD if you still feel there's not enough there" Fails WP:NFOOTY and lacks sustained, non-routine coverage to pass WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A top league? The guy was a bus driver and part-time footballer. I see some trivial mentions (mostly goals conceded) in the national press and a handful of WP:ROUTINE articles in his local paper, of the sort any non-League footballer in the UK might get. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be some significant coverage, needs more discussion on those sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article about amateur footballer who appears to be the subject of siginficant coverage in reliable sources (particularly the archived coverage Spiderone found in Bergensavisen which is the 2nd largest regional newspaper for Bergen). Jogurney (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Spiderone. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with Spiderdone and Mentoz. --- Løken (talk) 18:08, 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stein Amundsen[edit]

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

Disputed PROD with the wording "meets NFOOTY with many games". This is a factual error, article fails WP:NFOOTY as this player's games in the top men's division of Norwegian football took place well before the league was 'fully professional'. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of sustained non-routine coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nomination on a technicality, clearly fully pro player with top clubs Abcmaxx (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this can pass GNG, I posted a similar post in Jan Berg AfD. Just because there are not much online sources doesn't mean that a footballer from the past can't be notable. Govvy (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is hidden behind a paywall but looks like in-depth coverage from a reliable source. Aside from that, he has played for two major clubs and even played in the national cup final, basically Norway's equivalent of the FA Cup. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Berg (footballer, born 1943) Mentoz (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More votes for keep than delete but they don't really, bar one potentially, address any notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pro player who played 111 game at the top of the Norwegian football league system, Eliteserien, definitely meets GNG (he played national Cup Final that is also a strong evidence of national coverage at that moment) and NFOOTBALL.--Kemalcan (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:54, 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 03:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eksi Ekso[edit]

Eksi Ekso (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 band. When deleting, also consider deleting the redirects to the article. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No indication of notability; Unsourced since 2008.- Flori4nK t • c 20:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I found when I searched with their albums were the usual suspects, but nothing that indicates notability. I have found some album reviews but they are featured on blogs/unreliable looking sites. The only aspect of notability might be the notable labels. But personally, I think the sources are always more important. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:40, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Andreassen[edit]

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

Technically meets WP:NFOOTY after a single 10-minute substitute appearance in an allegedly 'fully professional league' 18 years ago. The rest of his career has meandered through the lower divisions semi-pro ranks. No evidence of any non-routine coverage to pass WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as an example of where notability guidelines rub poorly up against each other. NFOOTY is a bit of a meme, and permits functionally undeletable permastubs for people with parodically slim claims to notability like this. Ultimately, while I on the whole take the "passing one of GNG/SNG gives you a free pass" position, I think it fails for things like the weakest forms of sports notability. (Mind you, you really could have broken these nominations up over a couple days -- they aren't going anywhere.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources presented in the article should be enough to meet GNG, especially the coverage from Aftenposten and Romerikes Blad. Mentoz (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of references, but the way they are brought into the article suggests routine transfer reporting, stats and the like, needs more to indicate where the significant coverage is, particularly given a lot appears offline.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:22, 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janine Ganser[edit]

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

Definitely fails WP:NFOOTBALL and more than likely fails WP:GNG also. A German search yielded no significant coverage whatsoever. The three best sources that I found were this match report, this match report and a trivial mention. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:23, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Petter Andersen[edit]

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

Technically meets WP:FOOTY after making a single appearance in an alleged 'fully professional league' eight years ago. Has played the rest of his career in the part-time ranks. No evidence of any WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - have you even looked at the article cited? One more in-depth article like that is exactly the kind of coverage that is needed to pass GNG, which trumps NFOOTY. Yes, I know WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not an argument, but considering the amount of deletion discussion made by the same user on a rather small subject (Norwegian football) in the short time-period, I think we should give this article the benefit of the doubt. Mentoz (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like some coverage and no clear consensus, no harm in another week but currently seeing a maximum of two potentially significant instances of coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A player who has made just one top-tier appearance and has never been called up by his country internationally. No reason to keep. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - the best two sources on him, that I could dig up, were both routine. There is a brief story about an injury in Grimstad Adressetidende and a story about him hoping for a new contract in Dalane Tidende; both of these are local papers covering relatively small areas Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:10, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Aanesland[edit]

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

Technically passes WP:NFOOTY with a single substitute appearance in the top flight, has played semi-pro lower division football ever since - no evidence of WP:GNG Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only trivially passes WP:NFOOTBALL with less than one minute at the professional level to date. Currently plying his trade in the third tier of Norway, which is definitely not professional, so no realistic chance of gaining any more professional appearances soon. The best coverage found in a search was a brief report on a trial with FK Bodø/Glimt and a routine transfer announcement, so does not apparently meet WP:GNG. There is a growing consensus that failing GNG is more relevant than passing NFOOTBALL with one minute of playing. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, ongoing career. I didn't create it until several years after, when the news surfaced that he was on his way to a fully-pro league again. But a transfer hasn't happened yet. Geschichte (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article about footballer with a single appearance in a fully-pro league, yet comprehensively fails WP:GNG due to only having trivial coverage in online English or Norwegian language sources. Jogurney (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Geschichte's comment. Mentoz (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per Geschichte. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some desire to draftify, but I'm not sure why given there is nothing to currently to indicate GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm sympathetic to the draftify position, but here's the thing: this is a stub. If and when the subject becomes actually notable, you would write this in about five minutes before getting to the bona fide encyclopedic parts. And that's an "if", which if it doesn't go through will just mean a drawn-out G13 death or an MfD rather than a blank slate. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Vaticidalprophet. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 08:34, 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alesha Clifford[edit]

Alesha Clifford (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 rationale was appears to fail WP:GNG; I couldn't find anything more than passing mentions in match reports and squad announcements

Contested with According to its article, this is the top-level national league. By insisting that it is not "professional", you are making the sexist argument that women can never be notable in this sport.

Whilst over 50 appearances in the W-League would give a reasonable presumption that sources must exist, I have not been able to find anything to prove that Clifford is notable. My WP:BEFORE search did not find any coverage in independent sources that would allow us to build a biographical article. Coverage found on ProQuest was only trivial. In an Australian-centred search, the best sources found were this, this and this, none of which go into much detail about Clifford. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:07, 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. Sandstein 10:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Squad (app)[edit]

Squad (app) (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 startup, future coverage unlikely because it was acquired by Twitter. MER-C 18:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails on the standards of WP:NCORP as of yet. Future coverage would more likely be passing mentions as it is now a part of bigger company, Twitter. Dial911 (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that the article on the founder (created by the same account) is also at AfD currently: WP:Articles for deletion/Ethan Sutin. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 21:12, 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 no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus and a well-supported argument that the subject was already notable in terms of coverage prior to the arrest that serves as the basis of the WP:BLP1E assertion. Given the volume and divided nature of participation, it does not appear that further relisting will yield a clearer resolution. BD2412 T 19:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disha Ravi[edit]

Disha Ravi (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:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Being of the few who have been arrested does not establish notability. Wareon (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wareon, are you proposing we delete Arrest of Disha Ravi as well? DTM (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had the article been created post-arrest this question would have been valid. The page was created prior to the farmers' protests as well so calling it "inherited notability" also fails. The Vogue and Citizen Matters links make a case for notability of the subject in herself as a climate change activist while the arrest has only pushed her into world view. Vikram Vincent 06:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. The person was notable much before the arrest. In fact the page was created in November 2020 with suitable citations. Vikram Vincent 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even the BBC has covered her arrest. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56060232 Vikram Vincent 18:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Public outcry over her arrest covered by WP:RS https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/academics-activists-condemn-disha-ravis-arrest-say-govt-distracting-real-issues-143429 Vikram Vincent 18:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV established with The New Indian Express giving page one coverage. Vikram Vincent 05:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV: Is being a part of Time magazine report lend a hand to notability? https://time.com/5939627/disha-ravi-india-toolkit-arrest/ Vikram Vincent 12:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. My analysis of sources is as follow:
  • BBC only talks about arrest.
  • Vogue has only quotes from the subject, no significant coverage.
  • The Wire makes no mention of "Disha Ravi"
  • Arre.co.in is an unreliable source that makes no mention of "Disha Ravi".
  • The News Minute is reporting same thing as BBC about arrest.
  • Bengaluru.citizenmatters.in provides no biographic details but only covers her small interview.
  • Boldsky.com is same as above. Just small interview.
  • The Guardian only provides a quote by the subject.
Clearly, some of the sources are misused and most of them provide no significant coverage. She is known for being arrested over farmers protests but not everyone arrested over the protests require article. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:There are over 30 40 50 sources in the article and Aman's analysis, which was made at the beginning, does not hold anymore. Please look at the newer sources before voting. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 06:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a single source is any different than what has been already analyzed above. Instead of updating about every single source you add, how about you just show multiple reliable sources that provided her significant coverage without talking or mainly relying on the words about her arrest? I know that is not possible at this moment, and that is exactly the point. Shankargb (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she was notable before the arrest -- the arrest further highlighted her relationship to the international climate movement, which was why she was notable to begin with, Sadads (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, coverage is increasing exponentially, and planet-wide. Any arguments about lack of sources prior to this are based on outdated information and should be ignored. Abductive (reasoning) 19:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fails neither WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination seems based on the premise of the article subject being arrested yesterday would be the reason for encyclopedic inclusion. This article was created in November; she's not notable because of being arrested, but for other work. /Julle (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Reasons others described well. Honestly, I failed to see the rational behind this nomination. RationalPuff (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per analysis of sources by Aman.kumar.goel. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources apart from those who are talking about recent arrest. See WP:NOTNEWS. Srijanx22 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Sources before the arrest say nothing other than her interview as a part of larger article as right described above. Vague handwaves does not change this. Shankargb (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved discussion of !vote. Fences&Windows 12:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shankargb:
  • The tag placed here was not WP:ASPERSION but reasonable concern as your talk page has at least five sections with warnings related to disruptive editing in similar areas and two DS alerts in under one year, last being given to you yesterday. Vikram Vincent 05:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your attempts to derail this AfD with your continued WP:DE any further will be reported to WP:ANI. Be warned. Shankargb (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third threat by Shankargb, first on my talk page then below krao212 and now here. Please go ahead and report. Best! Vikram Vincent 05:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no scarcity of such 'climate activists' because there are too many. For a name, you can also create article about Mitzi Jonelle Tan and say that notability exists. But what requires is significant coverage in independent sources. The subject that has become more notable is 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest, but not this subject whose notability relies on the protest as of now. desmay (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG, including based on the sources I have added to the article, which includes in-depth reporting on more than Ravi's arrest, and includes coverage of her past activism, education, and current prominence. As a co-founder of the 'Fridays For Future' campaign, she has been referred to as 'Bengaluru’s Greta' by the New Indian Express, and this may help explain the intense interest in her arrest and incarceration, as well as the prior and current coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject fails "WP:GNG". No significant coverage provided by independent reliable sources apart from her recent arrest. Hundreds have been arrested in these 'protests'. No way we would want articles for each of them. Shankargb (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:BLP1E, there is reporting that is not just about a single event, but also includes the larger context of her past activism, her association with past and current protests, and Greta Thunberg. Ravi also wasn't previously low-profile, because per the WP:LOWPROFILE explanatory supplement, she had given "one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication", e.g. British Vogue, as a notable commentator, and "participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for [...] a cause," and she is engaged in "high-profile activity." Per WP:BLP1E, her arrest also appears to be significant, including based on the increasing amount of sources added to the Reactions section of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why they don't talk about her significantly without discussing mostly about her arrest? It is because this person is known for single event. Shankargb (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify, per WP:LOWPROFILE, Ravi gave interviews to British Vogue and The Guardian in September 2020, before her arrest, which helps demonstrate that she is not WP:BLP1E. Beccaynr (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Aman.kumar.goel's analysis of sources. Sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Nothing to show direct, in depth coverage of the subject. Many added sources do not even mention the subject and I question why they were added, and fail WP:NOR. Additionally, I think this falls into WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps there will be more significant coverage in the future, but does not seem to currently meet WP:GNG. Bigpencils (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only being noticed over the recent arrest per WP:BLP1E. I can support a redirect to 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest since she is one of the many who have been arrested, but separate article is unwarranted. Mukt (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As others have pointed out, subject was notable before her arrest; this is not a newly created article. Funcrunch (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom and findings by Aman Kumar Goel Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a clear cut case of WP:BLP1E. I can't see if she has done anything notable in her career that attracted media attention except her recent arrest. GSS 💬 07:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Her only known event is indeed the sharing of toolkit as part of protests. Aside that the subject has a lack of significant coverage. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Not every arrest is notable. Neither you become notable just because you are a climate activist, also WP:notnews Shrikanthv (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BASIC, People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. With over 30 WP:RS, there is zero evidence to show it fails. Vikram Vincent 08:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well sourced, and I see no reason to delete it. If there wasn't a controversy around this, I doubt that this page would have received so much deletion-attention. Tanyasingh (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of attention in major news media. Here's an in-depth article in The Guardian from today, 15 February 2021. Bishonen | tålk 11:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • The Guardian article only talks about her arrest, which is nothing more than routine coverage. It does not change that the subject really fails WP:1E. LearnIndology (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No brainer. Well sourced article, she has worked hard for climate change. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See WP:NOTNEWS. LearnIndology (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. A good majority of WP:ILIKEIT comments above haven't proven how the subject is notable. Tessaracter (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tessaracter: whose comments do you think are WP:ILIKEIT? Vikram Vincent 14:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep although she may not be popular unlike Thai activist Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul, I feel that the subject passes WP:GNG as there is a wide media coverage mainly focusing about her arrest. Yes this is a case of WP:1E. Abishe (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Numerous people, including her, have been arrested in relation to the 26 January riots and the alleged Khalistani separatist propaganda. That clearly does not make her notable enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. 203.192.236.24 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is not about a person who is notable, WP:BIO. The girl is only in the news as she was arrested in a case. That reason alone is not sufficient to create a Wikipedia page. Amavas Ki Raat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Amavas Ki Raat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete The notability of the subject is being inherited from 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest, as such the subject lacks notability on the basis independent of the subject about which the article already exists. Krao212 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved discussion of !vote. Fences&Windows 12:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shankargb: Do you know the above editor? I dont think you should remove a notice that has been placed as per procedure listed in the header. The account of krao212 was created ten months ago and their talk page has two DS alerts and almost ten sections dealing with disruptive editing which is reasonable concern for either SPA or canvassing. Vikram Vincent 05:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's no evidence of 'canvassing'. I have removed the above misleading tagging again made in violation of WP:NPA (it is fine to remove it). If you did it again then you will land in WP:ANI for this continued WP:DE. Shankargb (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shankargb: This is the second time you have threatened me, first being on my talk page. I would suggest that you please go ahead and report me if you think my actions are unreasonable. I have followed the process having due concern. Vikram Vincent 05:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But not a single source provides her coverage without mainly talking about her arrest. You need to show multiple reliable sources which provided her significant coverage without talking or mainly relying on the words about her arrest. I know that has not happened, that's why you need to read WP:GNG. Shankargb (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:GNG says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material," so the significant coverage of Ravi's past activism and biographical information does appear to contribute to her notability, even when the sources also discuss her recent arrest and/or incarceration. In addition, there are sources, such as British Vogue and The Guardian, at minimum per WP:BASIC, that contributed to her notability before her arrest, because "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vogue only provides her quote and same with Guardian, prior to her arrest. So yes it still fails WP:GNG given this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Shankargb (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was created well before her arrest, including citing The Guardian, which is an internationally renowned newspaper, well before her arrest. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Government of India's Delhi Police has made her notable. Here's an article in The New York Times. [1] I would have created the page myself. It's great to see such a well-referenced page. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article existed before the single event being complained of, so not only should WP:BLP1E be considered, but also the notability of Disha Ravi prior to arrest. In any event WP:BLP1E has three conditions that must be met. The third is If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. For this to be NOT met the event must be significant AND the individual's role must be substantial AND well documented. Given the depth of coverage of the arrest, and that Disha Ravi's role in that arrest was central and the arrest is well documented, I contend that the third condition is not met and so WP:BLP1E is not met, and so the article should not be deleted. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created as a puff piece[1] with zero reliable sources providing her significant coverage. Having an article on Wikipedia is no indication of notability, otherwise there would be no process called "AfD". Shankargb (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Puff piece is defined as Puff piece is an idiom for a journalistic form of puffery: an article or story of exaggerating praise that often ignores or downplays opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary. What you linked to was a stub. Please don't confuse with terminology. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 05:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article before her arrest read like a puff piece. The problem is with your poor comprehension skills. Shankargb (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shankargb: I sense you are getting upset as you talked about my reading comprehension, The problem is with your poor comprehension skills, instead of pointing out the specific sentences in that stub that amounted to puffery as you claimed. Vikram Vincent 05:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you missed Disha A Ravi is a youth climate activist from Bangalore, India.[1 She focuses on bringing voice to communities in need..."? Shankargb (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was created before her arrest November 12th 2020. Ample references even then to prove she is notable. Now even more coverage of her. Dream Focus 21:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Sadads and Bishonen, and Beccanyr; the sources provided by Beccanyr are substantive, and discuss more than just the arrest. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page was under the radar when it was created, does she have notability? The page creator is an admin, they have voted here without declaring that they created the page, that may not be a "rule" but imo good manners I suppose. Did the article pass the exacting standards that Wikipedia requires? I checked one source, the Thomson Reuters one. An opinion piece in which the subject is one amongst the many. The article as it stood then smacks of WP:NOTADVOCACY and ought not to have existed. Is there objectivity in how Wikipedia chooses its subjects? My vote is to impart it. Looking at it today the subject is not notable except for her arrest. Basis of my vote is wp:notnews wp:event and wp:1E Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:From the first version you linked, the Vogue focuses on four climate change activists of colour and Disha is one. Citizen matters is a community reporting website which focuses on interviewing Ravi. This establishes basic notability. What it also establishes is that the subject is not a product of the farmer protests as being claimed. Vikram Vincent 04:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Ravi is a notable person recieving considerable media attention, and ought to remain on Wikipedia. Even if she were not notable beyond her arrest, the coverage from BBC and other international news warrants at least a page covering that. Audrey (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has 41 references and clear independent media coverage. She was notable in her hometown of Bangalore before being arrested. It would be a tragedy for Wikipedia if this was deleted for arbitrary notability reasons. Narayansg (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is based on a person known for a single incident, hence must be deleted.--03:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.36.43.76 (talk)
  • Keep - I find the keep arguments persuasive. Sourcing from the arrest is plentiful and in depth, and sufficient sourcing precedes the arrest to get over 1E. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the essay WP:NOT1E is in my view correct: "If the article's subject has done more than one notable thing, even if the rest of it is far overshadowed by the primary event, BLP1E does not apply." The previous coverage is enough. In addition, I am not convinced that Ravi meets BLP1E criterion 2, which asks whether she "otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." It seems clear that she is far from low-profile and that she likely will, to the contrary, receive substantial attention in Indian public discourse. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Extraordinary Writ. The argument that she was one of 26 arrested doesn't hold, as the media was giving her specific attention. The pre-arrest covering is small, but probably sufficient (f.i. 1/4 of a Vogue article). She doesn't seem she meets BLP1E criterion 2 either, 'likely to remain low-profile' after her arrest. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article needs to be deleted since the subject is not someone notable enough to deserve an article. Also, the article seems to be highly biased and has quoted many far-left news sources. It fails to depict a neutral and complete picture of the issue, which is still ongoing at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaindivij21 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Jaindivij21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - Per others. Besides, I'm worried this will become a political case. Modi supporters will be likely to support deletion because that would help draw attention away from it. Of course, the opposite is also true - those supporting the protests will want to keep it. But we can always delete the page when the dust settles down and she doesn't appear to be that notable after all. In case of doubt, don't delete. Steinbach (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Also as per others in support so I will not repeat. This article predates arrest and has numerous valid references. I also believe it would be a tragedy for Wikipedia, a project that supposedly is to cover the sum of knowledge. This individual should be documented here. Smallison (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having an article on wikipedia is not an indication of notability. You need to show multiple reliable sources that provided her significant coverage without talking or mainly relying on the words about her arrest. Shankargb (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article of Disha Ravi should be deleted. She is not an important person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.5.145 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one is censoring anything but discussing the notability of the subject that is a mere case of WP:BLP1E. Shankargb (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She is known for singular event only. Hence delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.189.98 (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's too obvious that supporters of the Indian regime (and also climate change deniers) want to get her left out. Miss Ravi had already been portrayed in The Guardian[2] and in The Vogue[3] in 2020, besides she is the founder of the Indian offshoot of Fridays for Future in March 2019[4]. She may not be the most important person in the world, but still relevant enough to have a Wikipedia site been created for her. 178.191.247.76 (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Portrayal in Guardian and Vogue in not a pre requisite of having a page on wiki. She is known only after her arrest by Indian Police in involvement in Anti India activities & she is not notable elsewhere, hence page may be deleted . read essay WP:BIO & WP:NOTNOTABLE. 14.139.114.211 (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for closing admin: Re the new accounts and IPs above, it may be worth considering that there's a call on Twitter to disrupt this AfD.[2] (Thank you for the alert at WP:RFPP, User:Vincentvikram). Bishonen | tålk 14:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of strong WP:RS coverage, goes beyond WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a very clear case of failing BLP1E.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judging from the numerous well-reasoned keep arguments, it is far from "very clear" that the article fails BLP1E. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although it's not, anyone making WP:BLP1E argument also need to be aware what BLP1E is not WP:NOTBLP1E. Wide interest in this discussion either for or against does strongly hint that the subject is notable. Why is that?....something we need to ponder on. RationalPuff (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reading WP:NOTBLP1E we come across, The major moving part in BLP1E regards low-profile individuals; a low profile by choice (especially someone who actively avoids attention) is generally considered an argument in favour of the deletion of borderline articles. WP:BLP1E is about a very narrow criteria as mentioned and hypothetically, even if the subject wants to remain low profile after this in order to fit within BLP1E, practically they won't be able to. Having said that, following are the reasons why the subject won't fall within BLP1E: 1. The case is high profile and will remain in the media for a while. An exclusive Time magazine has covered the issue which means worldwide attention; 2. Social media groups are having a field day in trying to project the image of the subject using trending hash tags. You can find public calls to disrupt this AfD and the page; 3. The page of the subject received 128,153 views in under 5 days with 54 authors and 337 edits(as of this moment) which is a good indicator, even if not per Wiki criteria, for notability. Vikram 17:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E, can't seem to find anything else to establish notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I understand how this looks like NOTNEWS & BLP1E but there are definitely an abundance of reliable sources for this to satisfy WP:BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article need not be deleted. The person concerned has be in international news for past few weeks, and as an activist she has been standing against establishment. She has been searched the most in last two days in India in Google. Removal of this article is not necessary. But the method in which article is written is not of Wikipedia standard— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.144.69 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notability established by reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of the position any of us take on this page, if (and it is a big if), Disha Ravi is found guilty of conspiracy for editing a document on google docs, then we all (every wikipedia editor) will potentially be guilty of conspiring to peddle second hand knowledge and for every action taken on the basis of that knowledge. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Aman Kumar Goel's comment convinces me that the subject is not notable enough for an article. Subject is only came in knowledge after recent event. In fact, if you read the article, 95% of the article is about the recent event. So, delete. Aniruddh 02:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As of 18:18 on 19 Feb 2020 the article is 2532 words long. Words 19 to 106 and words 658 to 2532 are about her arrest. That is 1963 of 2532 words (78%) are about her arrest. However in the remaining 569 words are backed up by 19 references. So if you removed all of the words about her arrest, there would still be a well referenced article that meets WP:BASIC. This is not a case of WP:BLP1E. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now in a Google knowledge panel but only 11 thousand page views yesterday. Strange this is language linked to a Spanish article but not any Indian languages. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Significant coverage from plenty of WP:RS. The above links by Beccaynr significantly reports about her climate activism and her role in protests which makes it clear that it's not WP:BLP1E. Also, WP:BIO1E states, If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate., so it easily passes the notability test. SUN EYE 1 17:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And per WP:NOTNEWS, which states, "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event," those sources, and many others in the article, including the recently-added report from Reuters, which states, "Ravi’s arrest has kicked off a fire storm of criticism against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government for using heavy-handed tactics to counter the farmers’ agitation," show that the news coverage goes far beyond the context of a single event, includes her past activism and her role in protests, and her significant impact on the ongoing protests. BBC News, The New York Times, The Telegraph (UK) and TIME magazine have also reported on the broader context of Ravi's arrest. Beccaynr (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC) NBC News describes Ravi as a "well-known figure in the country’s growing environmental movement" and also reports Ravi "has emerged as a symbol of the Indian government’s crackdown on dissent" and her arrest has "renewed concerns of an authoritarian backlash to the farmers’ protests that have rocked the country." Beccaynr (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC) (comment updated Beccaynr (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)) WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS both appear to support a standalone article for Ravi, due to the sources discussed here and the many other sources included in the article that further demonstrate her substantial and well-documented role as an activist and in this recent event. Beccaynr (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in recent times there has been significant coverage on this topic, and topic became Notable. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a one sided narrative of a person to derail the investigations of serious charges. Let the courts decide hence this page should be deleted ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.142.115.44 (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Ever Keep Absolutely this article is notable, don't know how some people reacts like stupid and questioning on its notability. The World Is Standing With Disha Ravi. Pokai
  • Keep She is notable and she has been well known before her arrest, the topic important. April 2020 ‘’[3]’’[5] User:Baronlx01 — Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What seems to be odd is that wiki contributors had no problem with the wiki page before her arrest and imprisonment for conspiracy and sedition against the Indian Government. The arguments seem to be that now she has been arrested the page created about her before her arrest needs to be deleted. That because a single arrest does not warrant a wiki page. So my question are those grounds for removal of a wiki page. If there is a wiki page about an activist and the government in their country arrests and imprisons them does that according to wiki contributors provide sufficient reason to remove their page obviously not to back down to an authoritarian regime or support a friendly democratic power but because being arrested and having that in the news would make the page more popular than it should be. Is that your reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.252.25.234 (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Back in October, before the page was created and four months before she was arrested, she was one of half a dozen "young activists" from around the world being sought out by the BBC for comment on safely protesting during a pandemic. Since then, we've had more than enough significant coverage to establish notability. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/15/world/asia/climate-activist-jailed-india.html
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/25/young-people-resume-global-climate-strikes-calling-urgent-action-greta-thunberg
  3. ^ https://www.vogue.co.uk/arts-and-lifestyle/article/activists-of-colour-environmental-racism
  4. ^ https://www.fridaysforfutureindia.com/
  5. ^ https://blueprintnewsonline.com/5962/feature/the-climate-movement-across-the-world-part-4/
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has said that they have withdrawn the nomination, so no need to keep this open. Hog Farm Talk 18:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Torboll[edit]

Torboll (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 indication of notability. Not a town, nor a hamlet, nor a village. The consensus for Scottish villages is 10 houses. This is a farm. scope_creepTalk 13:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I notice the OS map labels this area as "Torboll Farm". They (and GMaps) show a "Little Torboll" south of the river; it doesn't look much more town-like. Mangoe (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could we say this is a former feudal barony and geographical area that includes Torboll Farm, Little Torboll, Torboll Fall, and the Torboll Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest? The feudal barony is notable and was once held by the Earls of Sutherland. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This barony dates back about 650 years and so there's natural coverage in a variety of sources including Scandinavian Settlement in Northern Britain. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fuedal and noble are usually titled to the person, not a location, and it has always been that way. So for example, it is the Fothergills of Garth Castle. The book on the Fothergills has 4-6 pages on the castle, but only because it was a sacked during an attack. They had other more important castles. When you look at the Aberfeldy, Perth and Kinross, you don't see any fuedal or noble links in there. Unless the place is a Royal Borough of some kind, perhaps where the king or queen went hunting and liked it and a town grew up there, so it gets the name. In this instance, Barony means control of the land, the person is entitled to farm it and garner tithes for it use and has been that way since the 12th century. But that is not the location where they located. They lived in Dunrobin castle, so for them it is just a farm and likely due to its hilly nature, always a farm. There has never been a castle there. But, it would be great if it was the start of list of barony lands held in Scotland article. On its own as a barony, it is likely not be notable. scope_creepTalk 13:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except this one appears to be titled after the location, or rather the name already applied to three of the davachs of land which formed part of the newly created barony: "...granting to Nicolas of Sutherland, his brother, for his homage and service, sixteen davachs of land in the earldom of Sutherland, in free barony which is called Thorbol, namely, three davachs of Thorbol, one davach of Rouearkar...."[4].----Pontificalibus 12:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It really needs to be described a barony titles held by a specific earl of sutherland at a particular time, not one location. scope_creepTalk 13:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, while the barony is interesting; it's the place that's especially important. It is of special scientific interest, has a historic broch and a cairn indicating that it was an iron settlement. It's an easy pass of WP:GEOFEAT. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to Canmore, it has one hut circle [5], which in the scheme of things is very small, when you look at Iron age or Bronze age villages, in general. It likely merits a single entry in a list article. Canmore has no information which makes it close to the bottom of the scale. The site of special scientific interest is Torboll Woods to the south, not the farm. scope_creepTalk 16:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to Bing maps at 57.957574, -4.130023 there is reams of hut circles up that way. Perhaps never been a dig up that way. There is a Dun as well as a an iron or bronze age field system, all along the valley. And I see there are some standing stones. scope_creepTalk 16:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can see hut circles scattered all over the valley on Google Earth. I'm happy to close this probably if I can determine if the article is going to be altered. scope_creepTalk 16:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's at least one more feature recorded at Canmore: Thor's Tower, Torboll. These numerous features are all part of the Torboll estate and the name of the baronial estate, Torboll, is obviously the most sensible way to head and organise these. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nomination has been withdrawn last week. scope_creepTalk 18:17, 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 redirect to Lake Havasu. Consensus is to not keep this. The definitive target of the redirect and any merger is now up to editors. Sandstein 10:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chimehuevis Landing, California[edit]

Chimehuevis Landing, 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)

Contested PROD. This is a former river landing, and a rather obscure one it seems. The coverage in the sole source provided is the single sentence Chimehuevis and Liverpool landings, serving both the ranchers and scattered miners, were the only regular stops for the steamers until they reached Fort Mohave., as well as a passing mention in a table of distances. A WP:BEFORE brings up only similar passing mentions, inclusions on old maps, mentions with no explanation in lists of place names, and a rather large bunch of mirrrors and forks of this article. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm Talk 17:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 17:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 17:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A very quick search of books leads me to believe this place is notable. However if consensus is delete, then I suggest that it be merged into Chemehuevi, the indigenous people who are still very much alive today (this was their land before settlers/colonists arrived). Netherzone (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Netherzone: - Could you link some of those book results? Everything I'm getting fails WP:SIGCOV, but I might have been using bad search terms. I'm also not convinced that this steamboat landing has much to do with the Chemehuevi beyond maybe the name. Hog Farm Talk 22:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to either Chemehuevi or Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi Reservation or possibly to Lake Havasu or Parker Dam. It was indeed a known 19c riverboat landing along the Colorado River, the closest landing to Fort Mojave. It was one of several villages that were flooded when the Parker Dam was built and Lake Havasu created. This is why the coordinates geolocate to the middle of the water. This newspaper story describes divers looking for "Indian artifacts" underwater, and describes Chemihuevi Landing as a "fledgling city" along with others that were flooded: Castle Dome, Ehrenberg, Williams Fork, Mohave City, Ft. Mohave, Hardyville, Callvalle.[6] Although I've found 9 citations and a couple photos that could possibly be added to the article, but I do not think this article should be kept. It might be interesting in the future to create an article on the numerous villages that were flooded from the damming of the Colorado River. Netherzone (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My preference for a merger target would be Lake Havasu. Hog Farm Talk 16:43, 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 keep. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mosley[edit]

Richard Mosley (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 state a reason for WP:N and sources do not appear to mention much that affirms notability. It appears to be written in a very WP:PROMO and WP:POV fashion as well. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it seems the nominator might be confusing this judge with a business man. Mosely definitely seems to pass WP:NJUDGE: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels, with Mosely being a federal court judge. In addition, I have found some sources sources, that might be of use in the article: [7] [8] [9]. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve. The Canadian federal trial court appears to be the equivalent of a United States district court, for which we have previously determined that all judges are inherently notable. The Canadian court is described as "a superior court with nationwide jurisdiction", and has a relatively small number of judges (37 in total) to handle all of the country's business under its jurisdiction. We should probably have articles on all of them. BD2412 T 18:13, 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 19:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Levine (medical administrator)[edit]

David Levine (medical administrator) (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 indication of being notable. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 17:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete found this page when cleaning out a backlog or six, but other than cleaning up sourcing, I couldn't find anything that resolved the notability tag. He's name dropped due to his role, and his former party affiliation was in the news at appointment, but nothing significant to indicate notability as a person. StarM 18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:31, 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 19:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Frazier[edit]

Curtis Frazier (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 several times, has lost every race. Most refs are by summaries of candidates or election results, has no WP:RS about the candidate himself. As much as Kestenbaum does a fine job with Political Graveyard, it is not an independent reliable source.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable candidate who was totally trounced in the elections he entered, not even remotely close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a minor fringe party's candidate for president is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to actually get over WP:GNG on their sourcing — but the sources here are Political Graveyard, a raw table of election results, and an extremely short blurb in a newsletter, none of which are notability-supporting sources that would help to get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 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 delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Castle[edit]

Darrell Castle (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 several times, has lost every race. Most refs are by summaries of candidates or election results, has no WP:RS about the candidate himself. He'd run a presidential campaign on $10,000. Not surprising there was no coverage.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a WP:BEFORE search finds nothing of note. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vice presidential candidates for super minor parties are not default notable, and nothing else here suggests notability. For the record I voted for the constitution party candidate in 2016.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 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 19:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Schulz[edit]

Maximilian Schulz (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:NPOL since the subject has never won any national or state level elections Padavalam🌂  ►  16:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂  ►  16:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂  ►  16:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂  ►  16:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being spokesman for the youth wing of a political party is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:NPOL — but this is referenced almost entirely to content self-published by his own political party, such as its own website and internal newsletter and directory entries, which is not how you get a person over WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold a notable political role. The only source that clearly comes from a genuine media outlet independent of the party is just a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article whose core subject is something else, which doesn't help. And the German article (which should probably also be deleted, but I can't read or write German in order to navigate their deletion process) is just using the exact same footnotes and shows no evidence whatsoever of anything else, so there aren't any sources that can just be pulled over from de to salvage this. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With respect to WP:NPOL, he has not even run for any office that would give rise to notability, nor does any of the sourcing establish WP:GNG. -- Whpq (talk) 03:18, 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 - nominaton withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Fu[edit]

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

Despite having an article about it from The Hollywood Reporter, the film has no other significant coverage. The source from the Los Angeles Sentinel only mentions the film in one sentence. Fails WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 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 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 19:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Clymer[edit]

Jim Clymer (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, has no WP:RS about the candidate himself.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Graduate Network[edit]

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

Was soft deleted, then recreated. Still not enough in-depth coverage in searches to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 16:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 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 redirect to Go South Coast. Sandstein 10:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist Group[edit]

Tourist Group (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 of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (that are not local or of limited interest) - fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:38, 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. While the article is rather short, some substantial sources have been provided from the keep side, in addition to being clearly in the majority. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vlado Keselj[edit]

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Not yet ready for mainspace Jenyire2 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom, article is not ready for mainspace. Zero reliable references, fails GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Changed reference to a more reliable reference, and one more reference added. I hope the page will not be deleted, and I plan to add more facts. "Vlado Keselj" is shown now as a recognized entity by Google, and this page should provide more verifiable information. Vlado1 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems to me to pass WP:Prof just needs some more work and the new editor might need help. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. Among his coauthors who currently hold professorships (but excluding Kenneth Rockwood since he's clearly in a different field), Dr. Keselj appears below the median in his subfield for citations (K: 695, med: 865, avg: 1777), publications (K: 80, med: 93, avg: 111), and h-index (K: 11, med: 17, avg: 19). There are a couple recent-PhD teaching assistants with higher h-indices... I would say he does not meet the notability requirements for PROFC1. Other criteria also appear deficient, so leaning delete. JoelleJay (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Additional arguments for 'keep': Added the currently best result for the upper bound of the length of the Pierce series from 1996, result proven by Vlado Keselj, which is mentioned in [1]. The work is also cited in [2]. The most cited PACLING paper listed on the page has 555 citations [3] due to an influential and simple CNG distance measure for authorship attribution, which will be added. Google Scholar shows h-index of 20, which is relatively low, but although h-index is a helpful measure by itself it should not mean much for Wikipedia in my opinion. An award that needs to be added is Bronze Medal on International Math Olympiad 1987 [4]. Vlado1 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce-expansie
  2. ^ https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PierceExpansion.html
  3. ^ https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=uDKsmuIAAAAJ&hl=en
  4. ^ https://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=10605
  • Comment: I would like to disclose WP:COI regarding the page. My apologies about the late disclosure. I made minor Wikipedia edits before, but this is the first discussion I am involved in. Vlado1 (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Both because of the COI and because, as argued above, the article is not really ready for mainspace. In particular, none of the content claiming that certain of the subject's contributions are important is supported by independent reliable sources, as it must be — the only sources are the subject's own publications. It is also oddly unbalanced because the article states that he is notable as a computer scientist in natural language processing (which I believe — his Google Scholar citation record looks strong enough for WP:PROF#C1) but then almost all of the content is about two mathematical formulas, one of which is only tenuously connected to NLP and the other not at all. Alternatively if this is kept (rather than being a WP:TNT deletion) it should be stubbed down to basically only the first brief paragraph. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have stubbed it down - following David Eppstein's suggestion - in the hope that what remains is now just WP:PROF notable. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The citation counts in GS look high enough to meet WP:PROF to me. The article appears to have been stubified to deal with concerns raised by David Eppstein. I see no merit in draftifying; it's basically a 6-month-delayed prod these days. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF#C1. I've struck my earlier comment, as draftification no longer makes sense. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 10:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of usability evaluation methods[edit]

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

Out of scope article, that I can't really discern of classify. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a legitimate WP:stand-alone list article, and expand with more recent references. I created this article back when Wikipedia had a more accepting approach, that welcomed knowledge regardless of its format; yet even then I based it on a legitimate academic source.
Per WP:LISTN and Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research#Defence, the list is not merely a WP:SYNTH compilation written by a wikipedian, but rather the idea of comparing the validity of different usability methods has been itself the subject of studies by several independent authors [10], [11], [12], [13]. Diego (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've added the above references to the article and written a short lede to explain the purpose and scope of the comparison list. Diego (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:14, 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 merge to UNIVAC I. Content can be merged into an appropriate place on the article, at which point the article should be redirected. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UNIVAC Card to Tape converter[edit]

UNIVAC Card to Tape converter (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 product. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a Univac article, not notable otherwise. Small sub-section in another article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:10, 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. AfD is not cleanup, but no evidence has been presented that the topic clears the General Notability Guideline, or has any other indication of notability. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vetri Association[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced and rambling promo piece about non-notable organisation (and then some); fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tone has been cleaned somewhat but the subject still fails notability guidelines for WP:ORG or even WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 18:17, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Muir[edit]

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

Longstanding unsourced vanity article (except a passing mention in the only source provided). The bulk of the content has been created by numerous users whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been to edit this article (inspect the contributions from the list of redlink usernames at the article's revision history). Of the news articles I've found related to this name, none have been about this individual. There have been a smattering of IMDB and social media mentions, but not much else on which to base an article. Appears to fail the notability standards. Mindmatrix 14:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the body text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG. People are not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because it's possible to offer technical verification that they have a job — the notability test requires concrete and properly sourced evidence of his significance (e.g. Canadian Screen Award nominations or wins for his writing), not just listing his writing credits per se. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 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. Those advocating keeping the article improved it or supplied sources, which were not challenged. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rehana Fathima[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rehana Fathima (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 subject does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. The subject has only recieved coverage for some contriversial events. The users Harryishere (talk · contribs) and Ritabharidevi (talk · contribs) (creator), who participated in previous AFD to vote as keep were blocked for socketpuppetry. Ghiblifanatic (talk · contribs) is also a suspected socketpuppet. Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 13:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 13:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 13:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV from 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2021 [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Not a WP:BLP1E. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Being in the news does not mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Its true that the subject has been covered in multiple sources for some events. But that doesnt mean she passes WP:GNG. Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 14:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: ​ people who perform some symbolic act of protest in support of a political issue may appear in the news, but that does not entitle them to have a Wikipedia page about them. Suppose I run naked in the streets (repeatedly) to support some political movement I may get similar amount of media coverage. News items like "the serial streaker strikes again" will make headlines :) Will you support creation of a Wikipedia page about me ? Sahir 11:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sahirshah (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
  • Delete: It seems to be a promotional article, which may contradict Wikipedia's policies.There are no significant contributions from this person and sources are mostly controversial issue . Padavalam🌂  ►  15:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the subject has had significant coverage in independent reliable sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bio subject is controversial but meets GNG. Our test for notability is not whether or not the topic should get SIGCOV, out test is whether or not the topic did get SIGCOV in "reliable sources that are independent of the subject." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Some people like Thjarkur have been ardent supporters of this page because they got the wrong idea about the whole thing. She is neither a famous feminist nor a human rights activist in the conventional sense. She was an employee of a telecom company in Kerala and became famous in social media as a bikini model or some such thing. When the Entry of women to Sabarimala controversy flared up she appeared in the news for attempting to enter the temple. She may be mentioned in this page, but does not merit a page on her own. Sahir 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sahirshah (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
    • Comment: Agree with Sahir. Three users from Kerala including myself voted as delete as we know about this person very well. The subject is notable only for creating controversies. So it would be better if we have more users from Kerala to participate in this discussion. I am going to inform the users from Kerala that I know to participate in this discussion. Regards. Kichu🐘 Discuss 12:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with the opinion that She is neither a famous feminist nor a human rights activist in the conventional sense. Just recieved some coverage from national medias only for controversial events. Better to merge with Entry of women to Sabarimala.The article itself was created by a sock who later got blocked. I also suspect this article was created for an undisclosed payment.Poppified talk 13:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Poppified (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Comment'In my previous comment, I clearly said already said I am going to notify the users from Kerala that I know to participate in this AFD. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Poppified#Need_participations_from_users_from_Kerala. Since I know this user, who is also from Kerala I left a message, please tell your opinion which is not all canvassing. The user is also uninvolved in previous AFD. I have never said to vote in favour of me. I have also told Poppified (talk · contribs) to notify any other users from Kerala that he knows to participate in this AFD as I dont know any other active users from Kerala.Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 15:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Clearly fails WP:GNG. Just because this person appeared in news, it doesn't mean they are notable. This person is notable in certain areas only because of the controversial issues surrounding the person. So I believe this article should be deleted from main space . Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 16:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article also constitute a lot with WP:NOTNEWS. So, it also supports the idea of cutting off of the article from main space. Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 17:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Toddy1: Noticed you added a "canvassed" tag to my vote. Kindly read the page wp:canvassing on what is and isn't appropriate notification about an event or a vote. The "canvassed" tag you added here is wholly inappropriate. Thank you - Sahir 02:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG, this article includes significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, WP:SUSTAINED over several years, about her career as an activist, including but not limited to: Times of India, 2020, News Minute, 2018, Scroll.in, 2018. Beccaynr (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am working to revise the article before I conduct additional research, but I now better understand that her actions have been deeply offensive to many people; this seems to help explain why she appears to meet WP:GNG, because the offense she has caused, and the consequences and reactions she has experienced, have generated significant news coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources confirm notability.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SIGCOV in multiple RS; easily passes the GNG.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: When sources are enough to demonstrate GNG, we don't need any other "notability litmus test". ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG and SIGCOV with a great margin... A simple google search brings multiple sources from reliable news outlets. I don't understand the argument above that she is not notable although admitting that she received "some coverage from national medias" for a controversy. The point here that she has received media coverage from a national media. Kolma8 (talk) 15:02, 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 keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Rock, California[edit]

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

This appears to be a fairly vague locale related to if not centered on the Bee Rock, noted by 1890s apiarists for being occupied by a large colony of the insects. Where exactly it was, I cannot determine. The supposed settlement never seems to consist of more than a single building and a school some distance to the south; the latter is long gone and barely recorded, but the building, or its successor, lives on as the the "Bee Rock Store", though some topos label it the "Bee Rock Hall". Other than that, there's a resortish ranch off to the west a ways, and several other perhaps more prominent features elsewhere in the state. At any rate I see no reason to consider this a notable settlement, or even a settlement at all. Mangoe (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With a school (extant c.1899-c.1945) and numerous references in newspapers to people having lived there, it's difficult to assert that this wasn't a settlement. In any case Bee Rock, California is a notable location passing WP:GNG. Known for example for the camp site located there in the 60s (summary of the situation here), details for GNG here: [23], [24]. This report talks in detail of the Bee Rock fault, three times mentioning it in relation to the "community of Bee Rock".----Pontificalibus 09:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found enough coverage online (local, national and international) to establish that it's notable. Meets WP:GNG There's also info in the gov publication mentioned by Pontificalibus above, as well as some historical photographs online. I've added a few things to help improve the article. Netherzone (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to what's already been found, Bee Rock's residents once got a semi-regular news section in a local newspaper (see [25] [26]), continued to get some coverage in the 1950s, still had residents as of the 1970s at the latest, and there's a substantial article about the history of its school. I'd call all that both significant coverage and solid evidence that it was in fact a community. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' The article has references about Bee Rock having people living there and is a community. Thank You-RFD (talk) 11:59, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna Ng[edit]

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

BLP of a music executive where notability seems uncertain to me. There are quotes by her and coverage in affiliated sources but I’m not seeing in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: please bear in mind she is a music EXECUTIVE. You probably are expecting the kind of media attention music ARTISTS get. For some in music publishing, this is as notable as it gets. A real trailblazer in Asia. If you don't immediately recognize her notability in the music industry after reading the sources, then I'm not sure what would convince you. TanookiKoopa (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and that's why most music executives aren't notable. Accomplished, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 17:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not finding much by way of English-language sources, but I wonder if there is non-Western coverage? Someone with more expertise than me would have to weigh in. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 16:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. TanookiKoopa (talk) 00:14, 23 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Abu Dhabi Young Driver Test[edit]

2018 Abu Dhabi Young Driver Test (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 article, and the others included in this nomination, cover various Formula One tests. The tests themselves receive minimal non-routine coverage and do not come close to meeting general notability requirements. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of results, and these articles entirely consist of entry lists and timing sheets.
5225C (talk • contributions) 13:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The related pages are:

2019 Bahrain Young Driver Test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019 Catalunya Young Driver Test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2020 Young Driver Test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also ping HumanBodyPiloter5, Carfan568, Joseph2302, and SSSB who commented on WT:F1.
5225C (talk • contributions) 13:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all none of them pass WP:GNG, it's just trivial coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Joseph2302 MWright96 (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not really possible to write an encyclopaedic article about a test. A generic article about Formula One testing is probably warranted however, and some information about the tests should appear on the car and season articles. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage is WP:ROUTINE (with the exception of the 2020 Young Driver Test, but that only recived non-trivial coverage because Alonso was allowed to take part, which is not sufficent for an article).
    SSSB (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of them really don't pass the WP:GNG test. If this was say in a fandom wiki than I have no issues but it's not. HawkAussie (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Having said that, I do think an article on these Young Driver Tests in general could be warranted (though it must be restated that some of the articles nominated here were NOT Young Driver Tests). A7V2 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The results of these tests and the things that happened in them are predominantly insignificant. Carfan568 (talk) 13:54, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Hertfordshire League[edit]

North Hertfordshire 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)

Article was dePRODed back in 2006 when any football league that ever existed at any point anywhere was presumed to be notable regardless of the level of coverage received. General consensus now is that leagues below level 11 need to pass WP:GNG to have an article. My newspaper searches of "North Hertfordshire League" and "North Herts Football League" did not yield any significant coverage nor did the same searches attempted through search engines. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't really see this advancing beyond what it already is, delete per nom for failing GNG. Govvy (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Low level, Sub-county level, purely local interest only. Nigej (talk) 19:45, 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 Mersin İdmanyurdu season[edit]

2007–08 Mersin İdmanyurdu season (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 football season that was played two tiers below the professional level so does not gain any presumed notability from WP:NSEASONS. The references, although plentiful, are just links to Mackolik and the Turkish Football Federation, which do not show the level of independent coverage required to pass WP:GNG. See here and here for the typical sort of depth of coverage that this season received. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:04, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shire Umbaal[edit]

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

WP:1E + article does not meet GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO or NPOL. Sources in the article and BEFORE did not show anything with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth, only mentions, inclusions in lists. Sources in article are brief mentions, nothing that is SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth.  // Timothy :: talk  06:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, no SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The alternative name ("Shire Ambaleh" -site:wikipedia.org -site:wikimedia.org"Shire Ambaleh" -site:wikipedia.org -site:wikimedia.org) brings resources cited. No other sources are returned. As per nom, article does not meet GNG, BASIC or ANYBIO. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added five more sources. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is clear to me is we either need an actual article on Darawiish or to redirect the term to the current article that covers that. Having back in the 2000s (that is before 2010) created several articles that later turned out to really overlap with other articles we already had, but due to transliteration and multiple names issues were under different titles, and having more recently accidently myself about 5 years apart created two different articles on Jack N. Gerard, one with the middle name and one without (that is embarassing), I am not going to rush in and create an article until I better understand the 1890-1920 history of Somalia. I have come to think Wikipedia has a tendency to create too many biographies and emphasize individual action, and not enough articles that cover broader social and historical phenomenon. A few times we even coatrack on biography articles, although not as bad as the 19th or 19th century encyclopedia that coat racked the history of the invasions of Germanic, Hunnic and other peoples into the Roman Empire under the article on Attilla the Hun. Of course we do not want to go to the other extreme and be like the one encyclopedia that coatracked the whole information on Isaac Newton under the village where he was born. We need all type of articles, but it seems here one on Darawiish is either needed, or someone needs to figure out if there is a different named article that covers the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please check the sources that are being added against the information that is being added to the article. They are not SIGCOV, they do not support the material being added to the article. They are simply being added to puff up the article, not because they have anything to do with the subject.  // Timothy :: talk  15:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because a Latinized name is spelled different from its native name doesn't mean the two characters suddenly become different people. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:17, 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 no consensus. The previous AfD was over 3 years ago, so can't really be considered as part of the discussion. The tone of the article is not in itself a reason to opt for deletion. After two relists and no further discussion, there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus at this time. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Ali Shah[edit]

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

Previously deleted at AfD and was speedied yesterday as WP:G11. This article is still a bit promotional but nothing that a neutral rewording couldn't sort. I'm still concerned about the notability of this person and, whilst there are plenty of refs, a closer analysis reveals some issues and I do not believe that this passes WP:GNG. Analysis to follow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source analysis - please note that I didn't and in fact couldn't analyse the first ref as it kept trying to force me to download this file. I'm not going to risk downloading a virus for this. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://thereader.pk/qasim-ali-shah-eminent-motivational-speaker/ No Appears to be sponsored/promotional No Yes ✘ No
https://www.geo.tv/shows/jirga/282328-jirga-motivational-speaker-qasim-ali-shah-11th-april-2020 Yes Yes No A TV interview with him ✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/us/453376-in-conversation-with-qasim-ali-shah Yes Yes No A very short Q&A that doesn't support notability ✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/743037-scholarships-for-uet-students Yes Yes No ✘ No
http://www.qasimalishahfoundation.org/ No No Primary source No ✘ No
https://images.dawn.com/news/1185978/twitter-rightfully-tells-qasim-ali-shah-that-women-are-more-than-just-wives-and-mothers Yes No 'Desk Report' article rather than from a professional journalist. The article is basically just a bunch of tweets. Nothing establishes notability. No ✘ No
https://kun.uz/en/news/2019/02/19/pakistans-central-media-to-help-promote-namangan-regions-tourism-potential?q=/en/news/2019/02/19/pakistans-central-media-to-help-promote-namangan-regions-tourism-potential Yes Yes No No SIGCOV here ✘ No
http://punjabhec.gov.pk/news/visit-meeting-for-joint-collaboration-between-qasim-ali-shah-foundation-phec-for-training-program/ Yes Yes No No SIGCOV here ✘ No
https://doorofawareness.org/board.html No Not independent - he is a member of this organisation Yes No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Keep while it seems to be a promotional article and it's tone is not encyclopedic, the person still is notable I believe. The article can stay by stubifying with removal of promotional content. USaamo (t@lk) 14:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the references show notability? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying in general that person erstwhile is notable in the country although the current version of the article seems promotional in it's tone. Deletion is not necessary, the best we can do with it is to stubify. USaamo (t@lk) 09:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Spiderone and USaamo, subject article is not created with promotional intention. Being new-editor, myself is yet to learn how to use words/sentence in compliance with Wiki-ToS under your kind guidance. However, I respect your opinion being my seniors, therefore kindly highlight which words/sentences are objectionable for alteration/removal, thanks.U.J (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youjay878 - please see some of the comments that I have left on the article regarding unsourced statements and use of some sources that do not appear to be reliable Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need strong sources to demonstrate notability, they are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone - please have a look once again as I have pasted more as well as aligned some citations as per you requirement (Books ISBN & Radio Programms YouTUbe link) for your better understanding.U.J (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert - I am shocked to read your comment, Person is notable if you may please see above remarks of editor USaamo. I have not done research work with just 4 citation required for stub article. you can easily find him in provided 25 citations for you good-comfort level. He also does have 2.58 million YouTube subscribers.U.J (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

° I've revised my comment to vote as keep. The problem is with article which could be fixed but not the person's notability which I believe is quite notable. The best thing to do with the article is stubifying and removing all those unsourced information and make it's tone encyclopedic. Moreover the user who created the article seems to be a newbie so we could give it margin for that. USaamo (t@lk) 08:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although some of the article's sources aren't reliable and it may also be written in a promotional tone but the intent of creator isn't to promote the subject. The subject is enough notable in his homeland. The creator is newbie and they would need some time to familiarize themselves with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. By removing all the unsourced content and promotional material, it can be assessed as stub class article. Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 09:37, 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 14:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:17, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warsangeli Dervish[edit]

Warsangeli Dervish (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 fulfilling WP:NOTABILITY, I don't see what the purpose of the article is. A Google search reveals there is no such thing as "Warsangeli Dervish". There were also many clans that were part of the Dervish movement.

The article also appears to have no sources and also seems to breach WP:POV, as proven by "The Sultan was indeed an amazing authority figure and a lot of people believed him to be some type of a saint.".

It seems more like an WP:Essay than an article. Dabaqabad (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bump Just bumping this to see your opinions Dabaqabad (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should probably be named 'Warsangeli (Dervish)' if it stays but I think the argument to delete need to clarify how Warsangali fits in to everything. I am not familiar with the subject(s) at all. A google book search returns enough results to confuse the issue. Is it notable and I just don't understand or is non-notable and I don't understand. Jeepday (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply @Jeepday: The issue is that the page is breaking several rules and is essentially an essay on a clan's involvement in the Dervish revolt. However the page is not necessary as many different clans were involved as well. The Habr Je'lo and Habr Yunis were involved as well, to a much larger extent even but you don't see us making a "Habr Je'lo Dervish" page.

I'd suggest deleting the article as it is unsourced, breaks WP:NOTABILITY, WP:POV and is essentially not an article but an WP:Essay. Dabaqabad (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment SultanSanaag Article is still not notable enough to exist on Wikipedia, falling short of WP:GNG, breaking WP:NPOV and is essentially an WP:Essay detailing a clan's involvement in the Dervish movement. Like I said before, you have clans like the Habr Yunis, Habr Je'lo, Dhulbahante, Ogaden and Majeerteen that were more involved in the movement than the Warsangeli yet it wouldn't make sense to write essays about each individual clan's contribution. Some of the sources that you added also don't connect with what's stated

Then is the fact that I don't see how it passes WP:GEOLAND as the article isn't about a geographic location. Dabaqabad (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Dabaqabad: What exactly is wrong with the citation I've provided? This Somali history is about a time and places in East Africa as for the WP:GEOLAND. SultanSanaag (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @SultanSanaag: Explain how? Is the article about a geographic location? No. Therefore I see no reason of this article existing as per my earlier comments. Dabaqabad (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As stated by Dabaqabad earlier, the Dervish consisted of several sub-clans so it would prove redundant to make separate articles for each tribal segment. Furthermore, some of the sources included bares no relation to the supplementary text in the the article. For example: in page 41 of Margaret Lawrence's Heart of a Stranger, there is no mention of the term 'Maarraweyn' or anything else slightly resembling what is stated in the article. Moreover, the same can be said for the term 'Indhabaddan', which also brings no results within The Warrior Mullah - The Horn Aflame. Another source in contention is I.M. Lewis's A Pastoral Democracy, where the article states: "The English at the time described him as a "Man of unusual influence", "A man of mercurial image" and "A man of unusual strength". While it does state that a Warsangeli Garaad (unnamed in this case) had "Unusual influence" in page 210, there is no mention of "A man of mercurial image" and "A man of unusual strength". I have highlighted several cases of original research that were passed off by joining it with unrelated sources, so how can we confirm the veracity of the rest of the article? Kangdomkome (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Jeepday the topic clearly meets WP:GNG as per google book search results. There is also nothing to suggest that the sources are unreliable. HSA777 (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Now that @HSA777: decided to join the discussion, it would be relevant to note that he has been confirmed by Check-user to be related to @SultanSanaag:, @FLG09: along with other accounts as shown here: [27]. Dabaqabad (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteAs stated this article doesn’t meet WP:NOTABILITY as the dervishes were made up of numerous tribes and coalitions and not a single tribe as a article indicates.Ciiseciise007 (talk) 07:09, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Trends[edit]

Carbon Trends (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 new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation way too soon." Article dePRODded by article creator without any reason given. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is new but it has already published 30 articles (it is peer-reviewed and it will be indexed soon -- application pending). It comes from a very reputable publisher (Elsevier). Let me know what else needs to be added to make it acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P977277 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • How many articles are being published is absolutely irrelevant, as is the fact that the publisher is reputable (WP:NOTINHERITED). An application pending is also irrelevant, as we have no way of predicting whether that application will be successful. The way to handle this is to delete the article as non-notable and only IF it becomes notable in a near or farther future should an article be re-created. --Randykitty (talk) 22:48, 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 delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wierzchno, Myślibórz County[edit]

Wierzchno, Myślibórz County (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 is missing data able to identify it, such as code assigned by TERYT database. Search in TERYT database failed to find it - https://eteryt.stat.gov.pl/eTeryt/rejestr_teryt/udostepnianie_danych/baza_teryt/uzytkownicy_indywidualni/wyszukiwanie/wyszukiwanie.aspx?contrast=default finds Wierzchno (SIMC 0908202) in powiat żarski and Wierzchno (0185755) in powiat choszczeński, with article at Wierzchno, Choszczno County. Stated locations seems to indicate that it was an entry for water mill that is now gone from database. TERYT was a sole stated source, I failed to find it in TERYT.

Note Wierzchno, Myślibórz County and Wierzchno, Choszczno County locations, OpenStreetMap and aerial images (this link requires OSM acount) show forest. OSM lists watermill ruins there.

Triggered by fixing link to wikipedia while editing OpenStreetMap (edit reports)

I request deletion of current form due to lack of reliable sources confirming that it ever existed. Water mill part was not added to the article as it is a wild guess based on OSM.

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, is it worth bothering with report at https://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wierzchno_(My%C5%9Blib%C3%B3rz_K%C5%ABn) Or is it botwiki like cebuano? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Red link on pl wiki (in the disambig at pl:Wierzchno). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A look at Google Maps also marks "Wierchno" to a small section of road 2 km east of the forest Mateusz Konieczny mentioned in the nomination, and there are a few houses along the road, amongst what appears to be farmland. The place also has a bus stop, but looking at Google Street View the stop appears to be called "Lyskowo", and I find no signage using the "Wierchno" name. Unless the area has been incorporated or has some official status in some form, a row of four or five houses does not qualify as a village, and even so, something more substantial than Google Maps to verify the name would be needed. The single reference in the article does not mention "Wierchno", nor are there any other references. As such, the content here has trouble meeting the verifiability requirements. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:27, 22 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Towasaurus Wrex[edit]

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (sport) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". All this has going for it is that one semi-academic article (see TDR (journal): "TDR is not peer-reviewed, a fact that has been somewhat controversial") did mention it in one sentence ("They were some of the icons of the Monster Truck world-Big Foot, Towasaurus, Predator, American Guardian..").This is, however, a passing mention, and meets 'trivial' coverage example as shown in WP:SIGCOV. At best, this could merit adding a sentence to to the Monster Truck articles, saying that 'so and so called the following trucks iconic', but nothing I see seems to warrant keeping this as a dedicated article. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My thoughts? That I could call my cat "iconic," but that doesn't mean jack, and certainly doesn't qualify her for a Wikipedia article. I agree with the nom's reasoning altogether. Ravenswing 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Surely we don't need articles on every monster truck. An expanded version of List of monster trucks should cover it. Nigej (talk) 19:58, 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammadullah Khalili Qasmi[edit]

Muhammadullah Khalili Qasmi (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 subject fails WP:NACADEMIC WWGB (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The account that made this page – User:Khaliliqasmi – has a similar name to the article's subject. Possibly promotional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertPipeline (talk • contribs) 08:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum to the above: Their user page actually lists the same exact name as the article title. DesertPipeline (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks essentially like an A7 case or very close. Possible WP:AUTO too. Nsk92 (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of meeting WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe there's a language and alphabet barrier but with only one or two (I'm not sure) publications listed in Google Scholar, and single-digit citations, WP:PROF seems far out of reach and that's the only thing that even looks like a claim of notability in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pegity[edit]

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

Short version: I think this fails WP:GNG and should be redirected to gomoku (but I dislike stealthy deletion by redirecting). Long version: It's a weird one. A ~100 year old variant of gomoku. Currently is effectively unreferenced (BGG description is not a RS; I've added a RS for the 1925 introduction but as far as I can tell from the snippet view the source is a trivial, half-a-sentence, type of passing mention). BGG pictures clearly show a 16x16 grid. There is a 1958 study of people playing the game, which a) talks about a 24x24 grid (so looked at another mislabeled go-moku variant? and b) is not in-depth since it's about decision making, and the choice of the game is mostly trivial (the article does not discuss the game history etc. just has a short paragraph on the game description/rules [28]). A more recent passing mention to this game (and the above study [29]) just states "The objective of pegity, or gomoku, is to...". Likewise here [30] "Rayner ' s analysis of pegity ( Gomoku ) ". I see no evidence that this gomoku variant merits its own article (and seriously, what could the article say outside that it's a Parkers Brother variant from 1925? Plus there is even the contradiction on whether the board of this variant is 16x16 or 24x24, sigh). Right now, however, pegity is not even mentioned in the target article (and there's nothing to merge anyway), but once this is redirected a sentence that '"evaluative problem solving" in the pegity variant of gomoku has been subject to academic analysis' or such could be added there, I guess. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination makes it quite clear that there are sensible alternatives to deletion so why are we here? It is absurd to be creating new AfD pages which are longer than the original article when deletion is not an option. Note that this game is not exactly the same as gomoku because it was also intended to be a simple peg board for making patterns and pictures. And I fancy that the name is an allusion to the famous Dickens character. As for notability, note that it is in the collection of the V&A – a very respectable museum. If they think it's worthy of attention then who are we to disagree? And note that they get the title right – it has an apostrophe. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to gomoku, which doing so would probably have spared unnecessary drama. I found no reference which discussed it separately; they all take it as a synonym of gomoku. The claim it was designed with a secondary purpose is something I could not verify, and in any case I used to use my Battleship game as a kid to play Conway's Life, which the game designers surely didn't anticipate. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well-known game in its time. We are unlikely to find reviews from that era -- the idea of reviewing games was not widespread in the 1920s and 30s. However, copies of the game from the 1920s and 30s are held in the collections of several prestigious museums as examples of typical childhood games of its era. I have added these to the article believing that these establish it as a subject of notability that stands separately from gomuku.Guinness323 (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guinness323, " A well-known game in its time." Do we have a source for that? Most museum exhibits are not notable, they are just examples of wider concepts. We have sources that say this is just an example of gomuku. Gomoku is notable, and there is no evidence this edition of it is. The museums that exhibit it are likely to do so just because it's one of the better-preserved exhibits of gomoku. (also, note that VAMOC states they have over a million record pages like this one - do you think we need a million new articles...?). Some of the content you found and added would, however, be useful if merged to gomoku and I'd support rescuing it in such a fashion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To merge is to preserve, so I'm not seeing an argument advanced against doing that. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against that, but it's not my position. BOZ (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources in the article meet WP:N at this point. The proposed merge target is A) a different game with different rules (though this game is a subset of that) and B) this game has a history of its own with sources to document that. A merger isn't crazy, but I don't think it would lead to better coverage of either topic. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found an article in a 1963 issue of Sports Illustrated (of all places) by noted sportswriter Walter Bingham that spends three paragraphs on an overview of Peg'ity, suggested strategies and the designs included that young children can use. Further to my point about this being a notable article on its own.Guinness323 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being featured in a museum does make something notable. So does the coverage people have found, such as the Sports Illustrated bit mentioned above. Dream Focus 19:35, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinnathambi[edit]

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

Only one source. If the consensus is to delete, redirect to Chinna Thambi. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. His position makes him pass WP:NPOL. However notability is in that case "presumed" and not guaranteed, and basing an entire article on a single dead-linked election document seems very thin. I don't speak Hindi and don't know any Indian newspaper archives, so I can't find out whether there's anything more substantial out there. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Easily passes WP:NPOL. former member of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly,should be renamed if necessary .See this (page number 82) Padavalam🌂  ►  15:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:NPOL as a member of a state-level legislative assembly. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NPOL, may be renamed to Chinnathambi Thevar per source provided above. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:18, 22 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Brown (runner)[edit]

Spencer Brown (runner) (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 runner, fails WP:NTRACK. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create
  • Keep, he runs a successful YouTube channel and is a professional runner with a massive following in the running world who has broken 4:00-minutes in the mile, as the references confirm. He is significantly more notable a runner than most other people you find under the tag American Middle Distance runners and quite frankly even considering deletion is ridiculous. His YouTube channel has 60k subscribers and is rapidly growing. Efb21 (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, massively fails WP:SPORTCRIT. 60k followers isn't very impressive in an encyclopedic context. Geschichte (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a lack of significant independent coverage to show that WP:GNG is met and he clearly fails to meet WP:NTRACK. Papaursa (talk) 23:55, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hussein Taslimi[edit]

Abdul Hussein Taslimi (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 significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Serv181920 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Baháʼí Faith in Iran or Persecution of Baháʼís. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss delete or merge options
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom, no evidence of notability. Setreis (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:23, 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. Nomination withdrawn. Eagles 24/7 turned up some additional results I did not find. No sense in keeping this open further. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 06:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Herrmann (defensive end)[edit]

Jim Herrmann (defensive end) (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:GRIDIRON (was on a roster, but never appeared in a regular season game) and in my opinion, WP:COLLATH. What coverage does exist on him is from the paper from the town where he played college football, and national media coverage is the requisite for COLLATH. DePRODed with claims about his statistics and selection to all-conference teams, but neither satisfies COLLATH. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 04:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This player left school second in BYU history in career sacks and set the school single-season sack record (Mekeli Ieremia records were not official in 1976, as sacks were not yet recognized). He was an All-WAC and honorable-mention All-American selection. He also was in an NFL roster in 1986.Tecmo (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, simply being on an NFL roster is not enough to satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON. He had to have played in at least one regular season game, which he did not (he doesn't even have a Pro Football Reference page). Further, all-conference selections do not satisfy the notability guidelines at WP:COLLATH. I will also note for other participants that the above user is the creator of the article in question. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 04:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 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 merge to Diplomacy (game). Sandstein 10:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Diplomacy[edit]

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

Diplomacy the board game is obviously notable, but 'the play of Diplomacy on the Internet' is not. First, any and all board games can be ported online and these days most are, from solutions like the Tabletop Simulator to a myriad of apps. This may merit mention in the article about the game but rarely stand alone. Diplomacy has a cult following, but sadly, this has not been written about much, and nothing in this article helps. It has a lot of WP:OR (like the unreferenced table included in it), or is sourced to commercial or fan websites. I already completed a merge of the two or so sentences that were referenced to reliable sources ([31]). In summary, the topic of Internet Diplomacy fails WP:GNG and at best it could be soft deleted by being redirected to the main article. Listing it here as I already completed a merge and I dislike 'sneaky deletions' by redirects - it would be good to get consensus for soft deletion (or maybe someone can dig sources to improve this article, but given it's 99% OR/fansites/spam to Android apps WP:TNT comes to play too...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Diplomacy (game)#Postal and email play. And I would suggest a more thorough merge than the one the OP just did. The info on Internet Diplomacy is worth preserving given its long history of being played online since 1983! (according to Meinel, Jim. Encyclopedia of Postal Diplomacy Zines. Great White North Productions, Alaska, USA, 1992.). Cordially, History DMZ (HQ) † (wire) 17:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • History DMZ, Do you see any reliably referenced content in that article to be merged? If so, can you quote it here (or better, merge it yourself)? I don't have access to the cited encyclopedia, and it is not used as a source in the current article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I do. The DipGame and Smartphone apps sections could be merged with the parent article. Also, IMO the three Google Play refs are not spam because they serve to prove that the game is also being played on smartphones. It would also be nice to hear what other users have to say or have found with regards to reliable sources. But the main article's 40+ refs could be used to verify some more of the info in this sub-article. Cheers, History DMZ (HQ) † (wire) 18:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge what little can be scraped Basically per nom. If there was anything other than commercial links to merge than History DMZ has the right merge target. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 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 Redirect to Virgin Media Two. Nominator has gone ahead and done the dirty work early. (non-admin closure) Foxnpichu (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3Kids[edit]

AfDs for this article:
3Kids (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. Non-notable television block. SL93 (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I now see that the first AfD closed as redirect. I will redirect it again. SL93 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:12, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We Care STL, Inc.[edit]

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

Doesn’t satisfy WP:NGO. A before search shows hits to their website and Facebook page & literally nothing of substance. Celestina007 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi User:Celestina007, I hope you are doing well. I just saw your comment on We_Care_STL,_Inc. and I understand your concerns. The nonprofit organization has visitors to its website and a completed and fully functional page and was also recently featured in a news article by STL Magazine (https://www.stlmag.com/health/we-care-stl-health-insurance/), a prominent magazine in St. Louis with high domain authority. Additionally, all the facts in the Wikipedia page are cited by credible sources, including the magazine as well as the Missouri Secretary of State's office. Could you please provide more details as to how this article violates the Wikipedia Terms? The organization has received quite a presence in St. Louis and has already been partnering with various medical clinics, nonprofit organizations and education institutions. Is there anything else you would like to be added to the Wikipedia page for We Care STL to give it more substance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsahinid (talk • contribs) 21:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — @Vsahinid, unfortunately, links to the company's website aren’t considered a reliable source for substantiating notability claims as they aren’t independent of the organization. Furthermore, an organization or an NGO needs to have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. You may checkout WP:NGO, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV when you can. In summary the organization in question as of now isn’t reliable enough to have a Wikipedia article on it. Furthermore the source you just made reference is too close to the subject of the AFD for it to be considered reliable in this scenario/context. Celestina007 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:18, 6 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) 02:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it fails notability. It may be a good organization, but it will need to make serious waves, perhaps beyond the region, to warrant an article here. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 22:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looked for more as I think I 've heard of this org, but could find nothing to establish notability. StarM 19:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company recently launched so it may be a matter of WP:TOOSOON. Also, all sources I found are from one website: STLtoday.com.Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:58, 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. Daniel (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bulgarian web series[edit]

List of Bulgarian web series (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 does not meet LISTN, subject is not discussed as a group. None of the list elements are notable, so the list does not meet CLN AOAL. The list may be promotional.  // Timothy :: talk  01:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  01:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  01:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Barely notable at this moment. Lorstaking 12:26, 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 delete. Consensus among non-socks is that this doesn't meet the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Morassutti[edit]

Giovanni Morassutti (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 article is refbombed to hell and unfortunately few if any are useful sources - they're largely passing mentions, if at all, pr pieces, blogs or otherwise non-rs. I expected to find something better in searching given it's been here for 3 years but i can find nothing. It's also worth noting this has been deleted 4 times in itwiki and it appears to be further effort in an attempt to promote him and AIA. CUPIDICAE💕 18:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the article meets (GNG), and the subject warrants an article since there is objective evidence that he has received significant attention from independent sources to support its notability. According to my perspective, the Italian actor moved from a small city of Italy to New York City at such a young age to learn how to act. Attending the Actors Studio as an observer at the age of 18. Deepening his knowledge of the American realistic school (Method acting) represents one of the main factors that makes him "worthy of notice." Having studied with both sons of Lee Strasberg and collaborating for over 20 years with John Strasberg by bringing him to teach to his hometown in Italy in early 2000, few years after his sister Susan has passed away, is also a relevant factor. He later brought him to Rome, Berlin, La MaMa Umbria international thanks to Morassutti's collaboration with Ellen Stewart and to his own house in Northern Italy, which he has turned into Art Aia - Creatives / In / Residence, a non-profit international art residency. Also, his international career in theatre and film as an actor, even if he has played mainly supporting roles, in my opinion, provides recognition in the field as competing for the David di Donatello Award in 2021. As a theatre director, I believe it is notable that he has presented his work at the Cherry Lane Theatre, a historical theatre. Sources on the subject are verifiable, reliable, independent, providing independent and relevant objective information that can contribute to resourced material for those interested in cinema and theatre and specifically in Method Acting. I also believe that Morassutti has achieved relevance in his field by obtaining a degree at the National film school and having taken part in productions directed by Gus Van Sant or Ellen Stewart at the Cafe La Mama and other off-broadway shows presented at notable theaters. Concerning the sources, I would say that the topic has attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period, supporting its existence as a standalone article. Finally, I believe there is enough in-depth coverage regarding his activity as a cultural entrepreneur, especially concerning the partnership with Google Arts & Culture. He appears as an artist on their database as long as on other reliable catalogs. Regarding the Italian Wikipedia, sometimes I don't understand their inclusion criteria. Simultaneously, in Spanish, French, Arabic, Slovenian, and others, the common sense seems manifest.--Doratig (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to your own opinion however Wikipedia articles require independent reliable sources, of which there are none in the article nor that I can find after an in depth search. CUPIDICAE💕 17:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — unfortunately I don’t see how either NACTOR or GNG are satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I see that GNG is satisfied since there is objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent reliable sources to support its notability.--Playfield (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC) — Playfield (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) 00:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Setreis (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I see that WP:GNG is satisfied since there is objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent reliable sources like 1,2,3,4 to support its notability.--Fraisland (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to our newest SPA. Please read WP:RS. 1 is a self published blog, so neither reliable nor independent coverage to establish notability, 2 is a user generated/aggregate review 3 is a podcast, so basically same as the first and the 4th is a listing. CUPIDICAE💕 20:44, 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 Burger King advertising#Children's advertising. Daniel (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burger King Kingdom[edit]

Burger King Kingdom (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 the WP:GNG. At current there are two passing mentions that get us around two sentences of coverage -- one to say it existed, and one to say it stopped soon after. Jontesta (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then redirect. This article is improperly defined as 'a fictional universe'. What it really is (should be...) about is the marketing campaign from the 70s/80s. Anyway, I see a few passing mention in books and one academic paper [32] but no in-depth coverage. I can't find it mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Major Marketing Campaigns although this source is not well digitized. As such, it seems this fails the GNG. But I'd support merging and redirecting (soft deletion) this into the Burger King article. To be precise, what can be resouced is the first (referenced) part of history, plus I'd also merge the mention of the lead character, The Burger King (who has his own stand-alone article right now and is also mentioned in passing by some sources I see). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Possibility of a redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 00:38, 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. There is a clear consensus to keep the content in some form. There are strong arguments about merging the content, but no consensus on a merge or the proper merge target. The main Conan article is possible target for a merge, though ReaderofthePack's suggestion about a "Conan in popular culture article" sounds promising. I recommend that a discussion about a possible merge continue in the appropriate place. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conan the Librarian[edit]

Conan the Librarian (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 the WP:GNG. Currently sourced to one unreliable source (CBR) that itself uses Wikipedia as a source. This is otherwise a an original synthesis about people who have made the same pun, and violates WP:OR. Jontesta (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is mentioned on two pages of this book, but I can only get a snippet view on google Books, so I can't check whether there is an in-depth analysis or just a rehash of our article's appearances (but this review of said book does mention the fact that it discussed CtL so it's an indication the book coverage is more than in passing; also another review does the same). But this source discusses the character for several paragraphs, although it is indeed light on analysis, and outside making the claim that " Conan the “Librarian” would become one of the most frequently created and re-created versions of our favorite barbarian" we are treated to a descriptive list of appearances (again, I can't but wonder if said list isn't based on our Wikipedia article...). This (minor) academic article mentions "was quite surprised to find an entire subculture devoted to this particular individual [CtL] online. There are blogs, graphic art, stories, movie excerpts, even software applications" and again has several (well, two) paragraphs about this character. This academic article discusses "a sketch called "Conan the Librarian" from the movie UhF" for about one page. And there is a dozen or so sources that mention him in passing as an example of a librarian stereotype or joke or such. Overall, I think this character is more notable than the average Marvel comic character we tend to discuss here where there is zero academic discussion and only a few general clickbait listicles, and GNG is met due to 2+ in depth coverage (although yes, the level of analysis is pretty bare bones). Considering the nominator didn't mention BEFORE, a WP:TROUT is warranted here for skipping said step (this should've been at most a merge proposal). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page has existed since 2004 and for many of those years, it has contained misinformation about Monty Python which has now propagated elsewhere. Now that this has been corrected, we must retain the article to set the record straight, by Crom! Andrew🐉(talk) 18:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and we do not have a grandfather clause, so we do not keep articles just because they somehow managed to survive from the wild west days of 2004 to the present. This is a collection of trivia and mentions of one episode apparances and the like. There is no sourcing that shows that this is actually a notable topic. If we absolutely must keep it we should make it a redirect to an adaptations section on Conan the Librarian and pare it back to a reasonable size.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a multi-sourced, multi-media notable article that is also well-integrated to the encyclopedia. Cordially, History DMZ (HQ) † (wire) 04:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I like the ideas of keeping and merging, however my only quibble with merging is that there's not really a suitable landing page. There's no page on Conan in pop culture and this doesn't entirely fit, since it's gone beyond a pop culture parody of Conan. There is an article on librarians in pop culture, but this doesn't fit neatly there either as a solution. To really cover it and the other content properly on any given page there would need to be more of a substantial section on this specific parody, particularly that it's become a common librarian stereotype. I do think that there's more coverage out there, particularly in relation to stereotyping, but I don't have access to any of it other than seeing the references that there is more out there. On a side note, there is definite merit in creating an article on Conan the Barbarian in pop culture, as it seems like this doesn't exist other than the section Conan_the_Barbarian#Media, which would presumably only cover official releases. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to Conan the Barbarian, per ReaderofthePack. It would be possible to build out a parody subsection under "Media", with Cerebus the Aardvark and Cohen the Barbarian. Despite being a parody of a popular series, there isn't significant coverage of the overall parody in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Shooterwalker, Did you read my keep rationale above? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw it, including your suggestion for a merge proposal, which was echoed by other editors. My view is that this article is indeed held together by original synthesis, and that the sources don't significantly cover the whole topic. Given that I didn't think there would be a solid consensus to keep or delete this, I thought a merger might produce a consensus between the more polarizing views. And it's encouraging to see some editors willing to compromise. Would you consent to a merge? Shooterwalker (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Conan the Barbarian per Shooterwalker's well reasoned explanation above. That is clearly where this can best be covered, and there is clearly not enough reliable, secondary source coverage to justify having a free standing article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 00:38, 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. This is certainly not unanimous, but there is clear consensus that GNG is not met, nor NPOL. That said, it would certainly be possible to build an encyclopedic article about an individual where multiple reliable sources discuss, in-depth, that person's performance within a particular job. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian R. Morgenstern[edit]

Brian R. Morgenstern (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 position, and fails both NPOL and GNG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Individual who served in a significant White House position meets WP:GNG. KidAd talk 00:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the above editor is the creator of the nominated article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The office of Deputy Press Secretary is a top White House aide being part of leadership of White House Communications, the office is second only to the Press Secretary. Yeungkahchun (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A deputy press secretary is not a "significant White House position" nor a "top White House aide", they're basically a well-paid, high-profile flunky who is a direct hire by the President or their Chief of Staff and servers at their pleasure. They're not elected, or even, really, "appointed", they're just hired. They may think of themselves as important because their name gets into the press, but that's just because they're a conduit for information from the Preisdent. They don;t have any real importance in and of themselves.
    More to the point, please read WP:NPOL and tell us what part of it they fulfill. As Cullen328 just posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah A. Matthews: "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." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG – there is no significant coverage of the person outside of the press release-style article in Politico. (Hard not to notice that 8 of the 20 refs are just about Trump's COVID test results.) There's an interview in the purview of his job as deputy press secretary, and the rest are brief mentions/quotes and standard bio sheets. Schazjmd (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The refs are really passing mentions that derive from his job (eg WP:MILL for a deputy press secretary). Don’t see any WP:SIGCOV by a quality RS on him as the main subject. For BLPs going for GNG, you need at least one good SIGCOV. Britishfinance (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor position, no significant coverage in RS found during my search. (t · c) buidhe 02:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. - Aoidh (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I've reviewed the sources Morbidthoughts shared below, and they don't meet WP:GNG's criteria of significant coverage. The Politico one is iffy, but that's the only one that comes close. - Aoidh (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Previous Deputy Press Secretaries had articles to their name, so precedent tells us that we should keep this one too ProbablyNovarian (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the position itself is not notable per WP:NPOL, they have had to meet WP:GNG, but this BLP does not seem to meet that. Britishfinance (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having gone through the sources, they are just WP:MILL (i.e. passing mentions consistent with his job); I could find no independent quality RS doing a WP:SIGCOV piece on him as the subject. A case of his Wikipedia article being a major part of his notability, whereas it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you have out the last 10 refs that deal with his refusal, in his job as dep press secretary, to answer questions on Trump's coronavirus infection situation, there is really nothing in this BLP. Britishfinance (talk) 12:15, 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. No significant publications by him. No significant publications about him. The biggest mention in an independent article is about a blog post referring to the "United States of Gaymeria." Not sufficiently notorious, although I'm sure he'll do more such things in the future. Tiny number of ghits, so never made much impact in any of his prior positions either. As a lawyer, only 2 caselaw mentions. Heck, I've got more, and I'm not a lawyer. (But I've taken cases as a plaintiff or defendant as far as the state supreme court and the US 6th Circuit.) So far in his life, he's a nothingburger.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per GNG because there is significant coverage in RS of him.[33][34][35][36][37] Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there is no real "significant" coverage at all, simply passing coverage, as Britishfinance pointed out above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These refs are all WP:MILL references to him doing his job (and mainly defending the administration on COVID on television). There is no quality independent RS that I could find that has done a specific piece on him (i.e. WP:SIGCOV), as a notable person. There are thousands of journalists/media people who would produce these kinds of refs, but they don't get Wikipedia BLPs unless they have refs specifically on them as subjects of note (i.e. a notable journalist/media person). Britishfinance (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please; with the "real" or "passing" coverage arguments. Significant coverage is reached when the source addresses the subject directly and in detail; not when it reaches a level of importance or non-routine for you. That Politico article is a specific piece about him and articles about how he does his job all contribute to WP:BASIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first ref from Politico is a press release from the Whitehouse on his appointment and the other four refs are him speaking (as deputy press secretary) on COVID. I could take any midwest Cable TV weather forecaster who would have exactly the same refs (i.e. an RS noting their appointment, and loads of TV interviews on them talking about the weather); but that is WP:MILL. There is no decent RS that I can see that has ever done even a partial interview on the subject. WP:BASIC is when you have lots of pieces mentioning you (as the subject) but no in-depth pieces (i.e. WP:SIGCOV). The Meena Harris AfD, is a classic BASIC. The Politico piece could be a BASIC ref (although not a great one), but you need more of them. The other refs are WP:MILL and not BASIC or GNG. Ultimately, his WP article is the greatest plank in his notability, but it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did another search online and in books for him and found little. The Politico press release appears in a few sources (identical language), but it is actually the best ref I could find. I searched using his name and including combinations of his alma mater, past employers, but really nothing. Even his WP:MILL TV appearances appear to be centered around a small controversy regarding statements he made on Trump's COVID diagnosis (the Trump administration seemed to take him off after that). I found some small pieces from his time as President of GU union, but nothing that would help BASIC (nevermind GNG). It is really the Politico press release, but that it not enough for a BLP. Britishfinance (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can dismiss it as a suspected press release but Politico does not label it such and I do not see any other outlets running it without crediting Politico. Further comparing a white house spokesman that is regularly on national news to a midwest cable weatherman is ridiculous under the MILL examples even though that is not even policy or guideline. Note that the coverage of the TV sparring are secondary sources to the interviews themselves compared to your weatherman example. All those little things you found plus the coverage I mentioned add up under BASIC. ("multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability") Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the sources dug up by Mordbidthoughts clearly showcase that this person passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not seeing significant coverage independent of their job. Those sources don’t take this over the WP:GNG threshold. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass GNG, and not even close to holding a position at a level that would confer default notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Britishfinance and others. Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Miniapolis 01:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet WP:NPOL. The arguments above that 'other Deputy Press Secretaries have articles so we should keep this one' are not persuasive. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:20, 22 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_14&oldid=1008635605"