Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 18 February 20 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America1000 06:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Music[edit]

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

The article is on a non notable music label who haven’t been discussed or covered in reliable sources. A before search shows me user-generated and self published sources such as this, this, this & this thus aren't to be considered reliable since they are all primary sources. Furthermore, the article creator has move warred over this thus bringing it to AFD would be the only viable method to bring this disruption to a halt Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have searched for sources myself using the Swahili Wikipedia article as guidance and not found the depth of sourcing required to satisfy WP:NCORP or even WP:GNG, which is an easier standard to meet. I also see no evidence of any significance or importance so this does not pass WP:NMUSIC either; it is not one of the more important record labels. A redirect to Ali Kiba may be the best solution for now, however, I am aware that the creator will likely revert such a change. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot find anything beyond the self-produced social media promotions located by the nominator and previous voter. No significant and reliable coverage to meet the requirements of WP:NCOMPANY. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article with no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's shameful how Wikipedia is full of all these unnotable record labels. I used to wonder about how so many unnotable bands manage to stay here for WAAAY too long (and I still do, actually), but record labels are the new contenders. I had no idea Wp is filled with all of these non-notable labels. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:48, 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. I'm discounting the unsourced allegations of wrongdoing by the IP, which in any case would not establish notability. Sandstein 11:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saggezza[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search links me predominantly to primary sources which we do not consider as reliable. The REF-BOMBING is merely a mirage to induce a sense of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - likely paid-for spam, creator blocked for spamming. My gut says this is a sock-created article but am not confident to push the delete button. MER-C 16:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly a corporate stooge sock puppet, but company's tech was bought by Cisco, and they partner with other major data companies. Notability in sourcing might not be there, but company clearly works with shady companies and uses large amounts of consumer data, and their presence and NSA connections should be exposed. 24.237.27.195 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If sourcing isn’t present then the article isn’t notable. See WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree - I think it's an absolute shame companies can hide behind WP:NCORP as a way to conceal their activities and connections, especially those involved in massive data breaches with obvious concerns to the greater public - which Salesforce went out of their way not to notify anyone about, because of course they did.[1] I'd be interested to know if anyone involved in this page has any COI they'd like to disclose - I don't see why we're so eager to employ extremely broad guidelines to provide cover for the companies sharing access to all our private information (one of many reasons I'm not using my normal account for this discussion). 24.237.27.195 (talk) 20:17, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Skivko[edit]

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

My primary concern is that the subject does not meet WP:GNG. In my search, the only article I found that was more than a passing mention was this, which does little to establish notability. Players could get presumed notability through WP:SPORTCRIT if they have played in a major international competition at the highest level, but Skivko hasn't played in the European Championship, nor the World Championship nor the Olympics. There is no evidence that she is a significantly notable figure within handball. According to her stats here and this article, she seems to be playing for the reserve team a lot lately so isn't even a hugely notable player at domestic level let alone international level. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:44, 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 redirect to Berkeley Student Cooperative. Spartaz Humbug! 18:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lothlorien Hall[edit]

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

While the co-operative of which it is a part is notable, this small dorm-like building (less than 60 students) is not notable by itself. Searches are difficult due to the Tolkien-themed name (don't know if that is why it was named such, but it is what makes searching difficult), but not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Current sources include two primary sources, one blog, and one nice article. But the article is about the co-operative, not the house, although it is mentioned briefly in the article. Onel5969 TT me 12:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree WP:NPLACE - "Bars, pubs, cafes, restaurants, and hotels tend not to survive AfD unless multiple independent sources have written about them in non-trivial detail." The notable particularities of this place have elicited multiple independent queries. The examples below are from culture anthropological and urban development fields:
    • Cultural anthropology: "My three years at Lothlorien had convinced me without any doubt that I wanted to live in community for the rest of my life, and that my ideal community would look and feel a lot like Lothlorien. The house is an oasis in Berkeley's otherwise vast and impersonal student setting, where high turnover is endemic... Where many student co-ops struggle to create a lasting identity, Lothlorien succeeds, persisting as an entity unto itself, where the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts." Sterling, Ted. Foundation For Intentional Community; Rutledge Iss. 110, (Spring 2001): 41-44.
    • Urban development: "As the sole vegetarian house in the 1300 member Berkeley Student Cooperative (BSC), Lothlorien became the de facto eco-theme house... utility bills, while low, were not always at the per capita bottom among the 20 BSC co-ops. A look at Lothlorien offers some insights on the unique challenges that co-ops face in environmental performance... Presently Lothlorien uses 125 kWh of electricity per day, just over 2 kWh per person... Solar panels were installed on the roof of South House in 2010. Occupying 3/4 of the roof (the rest is used for solar hot water), these panels produce nearly all of the electricity needed during summer afternoon peak hours when rates are 300% higher than normal... it’s easy to romanticize its image as one of perfection. In actuality greater heights in co-opitecture can be achieved." Lothlorien & the limits of sustainability Note the multiple architectural and engineering diagrams.
  • Delete The Berkeley Student Cooperative is notable, this house is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johnpacklambert: I disagree. Please note the two article I cite in response to Cupper52. One states that "As the sole vegetarian house in the 1300 member Berkeley Student Cooperative (BSC), Lothlorien became the de facto eco-theme house. Elves, as residents of Lothlorien are called, are prominent at the forefront of the green movement" wile the other states that "Where many student co-ops struggle to create a lasting identity, Lothlorien succeeds, persisting as an entity unto itself, where the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts." Rybkovich (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. If "Lothlorien Hall" is something someone could meaningfully look up on Wikipedia, then it is probably a decent search term that should lead to Berkeley Student Cooperative. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Context, this is important info to consider: Affordable housing is a rarity for large universities in big cities. A one bedroom apartment close to UC Berkeley is approximately $2k a month. Berkeley students are fortunate to have an affordable option - Berkeley Student Cooperative (BSC), the largest co-op system in the USA, where food and board are $7,500 per semester. The system can house approx 1,300 students, there is a waiting list to become a member. Getting info about the co-ops is essential. If you go to the BSC page you will see that it is almost impossible to navigate. Different houses have different reputation and character, there is interesting history and specific culture for several halls - BSC is not a just a collection of nearly identical dormitories. Unfortunately, info regarding the distinct halls makes the BSC page very confusing and requires a great effort to find what one is looking for. My project is to trim the huge BSC article and create individual pages for the standout halls that now have large subsections. There is additional relevant info about the particular houses which will make the BSC article even worse if inserted into individual subsections.
Info regarding the stand out houses is really important for the students: Consider two houses Cloyne Court Hotel and Casa Zimbabwe, both have their own character with important differences. For example: Cloyne is a sober house, no drugs or alcohol allowed. If we look at the stats we can see that there are a lot of people looking for this info. If you examine the stats for 2019 (2020 would not be a good example). Casa Zimbabwe had 3,463 views, Cloyne had 2,713.
Out of all the houses, Lothlorien stands out the most. Yet at the same time it is considered a representative of the whole BSC system. It very well fits the hippy stereotype that some still associate with this university and its students. Its a very close community, you can't have meat inside the house, there are gardens and tree houses, and to some extent the community has its own diction and vocabulary. Take a guess on which house was the origin of the nude run through Berkeley libraries at the end of each semester? ;) For the past several years it has been one of the focal points of political activity in the USA. All of the above is essential info for both students making housing decisions (a house full of revolutionaries making phone calls 24 hours a day may not be enticing) and important for those interested in whats going on Berkeley. The article you are looking at right now is the info taken out of a BSC subsection. I'm currently expanding it. There is a lot of historical info in newspaper archives that I'm going through and relevant architectural info (historically and environmentally) that I will be adding. The problem with working on it and expanding the info within the Berkeley Student Cooperative article is that it would be making it even more confusing, which is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done. @Johnpacklambert:, @Cupper52:, @Shellwood:, I'm pinging you just in case. Rybkovich (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That above demonstrates that BCS is notable, it in no way persuades me that this particular house is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Johnpacklambert, exactly, which is what I said in the nom. Onel5969 TT me 19:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree that "a very close community, you can't have meat inside the house, there are gardens and tree houses, and to some extent the community HAS ITS OWN DICTION AND VOCABULARY" is not notable info (in addition there are murals running a long the sides of the house that would be presented in a gallery). I can't think of any dorm buildings like that. Also have you considered it as solution to the very serious problem with the BSC article? Please consider the view stats, there is distinctive information that students are basing their decisions on, which is very hard to get to if its retained within the Berkeley Student Cooperative article. Approx 3,000 annual views for each house is not an irrelevant factor. Rybkovich (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re notability - "While having house members indirectly committed to a theme does not inevitably produce tension, intra-house dynamics are are highly variable semester to semester. For example, Lothlorien, the vegan/vegetarian-themed house, has also become known as a space of political activism. Lothlorien resident Iman Kazah said, “It took me a long time to learn a certain dialect in Loth,” a house where the culture encourages speaking in a specific rhetoric as to best engender inclusivity". I think that having a co-op house that is closer to being a commune than a dormitory is notable. Rybkovich (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re notability - "As the sole vegetarian house in the 1300 member Berkeley Student Cooperative (BSC), Lothlorien became the de facto eco-theme house. Elves, as residents of Lothlorien are called, are prominent at the forefront of the green movement - just in my four years there, we passed a campus referendum to create $100,000 of funding a year for green initiatives at UC Berkeley, started a collective grocery store, and participated in tree sits." Rybkovich (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re notability - Lothlorien holds theater performances: Activism plays role in student-run production of Bertolt Brecht’s plays Rybkovich (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re notability - Some members consider Lothlorien to be haunted, Two female spirits haunt the co-op — both victims of domestic violence and fraught passion who died while living at Lothlorien years ago. Rybkovich (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re notability - "UC Berkeley has a longstanding tradition of nude activism, stemming in large part from a push for sexual liberation on campus that occurred around the same time as the Free Speech Movement... At UC Berkeley, the practice of streaking to relieve finals stress has been traced back to Lothlorien House, a UC Berkeley co-op." Given the sources above I doubt this is a surprise given the character of house.Rybkovich (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on arguments above, mainly that it could be legitimately covered in the Berkeley Student Cooperative article, but it is too much to merge into that overstuffed article. I disagree with suggestion that it could be deleted but "If an article needs to be split (like List of Berkeley Student Cooperative properties or something), then we can always do that later." No, that would make the material inaccessible and would tend to violate Wikipedia's basic operating agreement with editors, that their work should be attributed. It would be okay by me for that list-article to be created, and this article redirected to a section about this place. Properly the merger edit should indicate credit owed to original authors of the article being merged. And the edit history would survive at what becomes a redirect. --Doncram (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doncram: I didn't comment suggesting deletion; I commented in favour of a redirect. You seem to be misunderstanding my statement. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We are not RS, we defer to RS. Even if every single wikipedia contributor held the personal opinion this dorm wasn't notable, it appears some genuine reporters and editors disagreed, and covered it in the kind of detail required to measure up to GNG. When a topic measures up to GNG wikipedia contributor's personal opinions take a far second place. Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geo Swan, I would agree, if that were the case. However, which of the independent sources actually cover the dorm (not the co-operative) in-depth? The 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 11th are not independent sources; the 3rd is a blog, and not reliable; the 5th is about the co-op and only offers a brief mention of the dorm; the 7th and 8th are a mere mentions; the 9th and 10th don't even mention the dorm. And I don't even know what the 1st one is, I can't find any clue about Communities as a publication, or the author Ted Sterling. So, out of the 11 current sources, there is not a single one which is in-depth from an independent, reliable source. Onel5969 TT me 23:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • onel5969 I'd be very interested in why you don't consider Lothlorien to be independent from The Daily Californian. There was a large student run cooperative housing corporation at two of the University's I attended. They were fiercely independent of the University administration, given that they raised the mortgages, and ran million dollar operations, independent of the University. The Daily Californian, its a student run paper? I didn't realize that, at first. All the student run newspapers I have ever come across, also fiercely independent. Since the newspaper and the coop housing federation are independent from the University aren't they independent from one another? Geo Swan (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Geo Swan, Because student newspapers are funded by the university. The co-operative is funded by the university. No matter how loudly the claims of "fiercely independent" they decry, they are inexorably linked, and hence cannot be considered independent. In addition, all you have to do is look at the content of student run newspapers, and the vast majority of that content is university related. Onel5969 TT me 03:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Funded by the University? Are you sure? Up here College and University newspapers are paid for by student fees. Yes, the student federation has an agreement for the University to collect the fees, they then hand them over to the independent student federation.
          • There may be Universities in the United States where the administration controls the student newspaper. But Berkeley? Berkeley is well-known as one of the most radical campuses in the United States.
          • The Berkeley Student Cooperative article contains zero hints it is run by the University. bsc.coop also contains zero hints it is run by the University. All the houses are off campus - same as the coop housing at the Universities I attended. Geo Swan (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • The first sentence of the main page of The Daily Californian https://www.dailycal.org/ says: "We're an independent, student-run newsroom."
onel5969, I have an essay User:Geo Swan/opinions/On apologies. I am not looking for an apology from you for insisting that The Daily Californian was not an independent organization. I do expect a clear acknowledgement that this claim was incorrect. Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geo Swan, entities can make any claim they wish to. The fact is they are funded by the school. What don't you understand about that? If they are funded by the school, they cannot, by definition, be independent. TCM magazine can claim they are independent of TCM, doesn't make the claim true. The paper receives a portion of it's funds from student fees through the university ($2.50 per student). In doing so, they can claim independence from the administration, but not from the university. Onel5969 TT me 14:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that logic, PBS and BBC are not independent since they receive funding from their respective governments. Where the money comes from is irrelevant, what matters is editorial control. I'm undecided on notability, but I'm not buying the argument that the paper isn't independent. Smartyllama (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you put any stock in the advice of WP:ATA? It has advice at WP:PAPERONLY that says "If offline sources, even exclusively offline sources, are used to reference an article, we give the creator (and other contributors) the benefit of the doubt in accepting their accuracy." Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for providing the link to Communities, which has no editorial oversight, and exists only as a promotional tool. So yes, I do put stock in non-online resources, and this one is not reliable.Onel5969 TT me 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. How does it not have editorial oversight? 2. Why would you think it's a "promotional tool"? 3. Lack of independent review does not classify it as unreliable. Rybkovich (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too would be very interested in an explanations as to why you concluded there was no editorial oversight, and why you concluded it existed only as a promotional tool. Geo Swan (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geo Swan, because the site which publishes it says that it exists for promotional purposes of its members. And in response to the comment down below, no matter how professional a blog is, it's still a blog. Onel5969 TT me 12:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Onel5969: Really? Please substantiate this claim with a link. Please quote the passages you think substantiate your claim. Geo Swan (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
onel5969 Independent source 1. It's a Magical Life by Ted Sterling 2. While it is a blog and there is a rule. The rule is not set in stone. I looked up the author on linked-in - he majored in architecture, and received an MBA in Sustainable Business, both degrees directly relate to the content of the post. He received his MBA in 2010 while the post was made in 2011. We can see that the post was done professionally - diagrams and reference, as well as how the relevant study was conducted. Also you can see that the blog was run for almost four years, and has multiple posts re the same topic, all done in the same high quality, professional manner. I know that these facts will not convince everyone that the author is a "subject matter expert", but its pretty clear that others will find the source reliable even if he is not SME. Re four directly related articles by DailyCal - Berkeley Student Cooperative is independent of the university, about half of its members are students but not at UC Berkeley. FYI while co-ops do technically fit the definition of a dormitory, they are not usually referred to as such. Per wiki article prisons also fit the definition of a dormitory :) Rybkovich (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the link to the article didn't work through my firefox, but it did through chrome. Also #2. The article is not complete in the link, but my friend is a librarian and sent me the complete article, if you want to read it I can send it to your email. Rybkovich (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. Right now, it's filled with footnotes and tangents on lore and urban legends. Please fix this if you want to rescue this mess, and ping me when you're done. I would settle for a redirect. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: I like your "footnotes and tangents lore and urban legends" rhyme, but we are not in a warehouse rap battle so no need for the attitude. You can keep up with the discussion by starring it. I see one "urban legend", which is listed as such so no need to pluralize. Tangents on lore are required because lore is what makes this house stand out. That is why its always one of the 30+ Berekeley Students Cooperatives houses mentioned in articles about the system. I believe and others will agree that the WP:GNG is met. I see that you're a lawyer, me too. So lets just keep to supporting our propositions as we continue the discussion. Rybkovich (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian's invocation of wp:TNT as reason to delete is an admission that the topic is Wikipedia-notable plus a call to ignore Wikipedia's requirements for giving credit in edit history to editors. It should not be deleted only to be re-created. Please see wp:TNTTNT (to which I contributed) for expansion on these arguments. --Doncram (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: I don't know what you're on about. If I write an article from scratch about topic A, and you write an article from scratch about Topic A; then that doesn't mean you have to credit me since none of my material was used. Not saying I agree with the delete and redirect approach nor the TNT approach here, but it is widely accepted valid outcome in general. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, I see that the wp:TNTTNT essay had been modified, and had lost its upfront statement that arguing "TNT" is plainly "acknowledging the validity of the page's topic", and more, which I have just restored. Consensus of a good many editors about that essay, e.g. when it itself was nominated for deletion, is that indeed it is not right or good for us to delete one version of an article, only to replace it with your own, or to leave a hole where it is agreed that an article topic is valid. The bad practice, in cases when an original article was created and developed in good faith (as opposed to copyvios, say) should not be accepted. Discuss further at Wikipedia talk:TNTTNT. --Doncram (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per WP:HEY, article is well improved now. Cuoxo (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see significant coverage in independent sources. I'm not convinced that Communities is an independent source, and much of the rest of the article's sourcing fails WP:ORGIND.----Pontificalibus 09:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"much of the rest of the article's sourcing fails" thats a strong claim. How does it fail? Rybkovich (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's either not independent, or it doesn't contain significant coverage, or otherwise doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. For example the most cited sources are [1] and [2], which are self-published. Strip out the non-independent sources and there are only passing mentions.----Pontificalibus 14:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pontificalibus: Communities Magazine is an independent source, and both it and the specific article are available at universities' research journal collections see. Re "passing mentions", you can find articles specifically about lothlorien - here, here, and here. Berkeley Student Cooperative is non profit corporation independent of University of California, Berkeley. The Daily Californian is a non-profit California corporation independent of University of California, Berkeley. Given the above I don't see how the article fails any one of the WP:ORGCRIT primary criteria. Rybkovich (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGCRIT states that a dependent source is "any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly" - a student newspaper serving one university is obviously closely associated with that university and its students, including any associated student accommodation buildings and organizations such as student cooperatives. It can be used as a source but not to establish the notability of an organization.
However, even if we're generous and agree that the UC Berkeley's Student newspaper is not even indirectly associated with UC Berkeley students and their accommodation we still don't find enough sources with sufficient in-depth independent coverage to satisfy WP:ORG:
  • Sterling, Ted (Spring 2001). "It's a magical life". Communities. 110: 41–44 – via ProQuest. Not independent - akin to a promotional trade publication
  • "Lothlorien | Berkeley Student Cooperative". www.bsc.coop. Archived from the original on 2020-11-26. Retrieved 2021-01-21.Not independent - this is the owner of the building
  • "The Daily Californian - Vegan, Vegetarian Students Find Berkeley Welcoming". 2006-02-23. Archived from the original on 2006-02-23. Retrieved 2021-01-26.One sentence, trivial fails WP:ORGDEPTH
  • "The Daily Californian - Increase in Food Costs Forces Co-Ops to Cut Meal Spending". archive.dailycal.org. Retrieved 2021-01-27.One sentence, trivial fails WP:ORGDEPTH
  • Staff, Sophia Weltman | (2014-03-03). "Activism plays role in student-run production of Bertolt Brecht's plays". The Daily Californian. Retrieved 2021-01-26.Trival, two mentions merely as a location
  • Kurata, Elizabeth; Smith, Conner (2016-04-29). "Demystifying the co-ops". The Daily Californian. Retrieved 2021-01-27.Fails WP:ORGIND - article states "it is also important to note that the writers are both BSC members"
  • "Lothlorien House - History of the Houses". 2007-10-06. Archived from the original on 2007-10-06. Retrieved 2021-01-21.Not a reliable source
  • Ginsburg, Marsha (1995-02-10). "Killer of Berkeley student "Bibi" Lee to be paroled". SFGATE. Retrieved 2021-01-26.Trivial mention
  • "People v. Page (1991)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2021-01-26.Primary source where mentioned in passing - cannot confer notability
  • "A real haunted house: the spirits of Lothlorien | The Daily Californian". 2016-08-14. Archived from the original on 2016-08-14. Retrieved 2021-01-27.Indirectly associated student paper fails WP:ORGIND
  • Staff, Michelle Pitcher | (2015-12-07). "The naked truth about the Naked Run". The Daily Californian. Retrieved 2021-01-24.Trivial mention
  • "Low-income students question whether UC Berkeley co-ops are living up to mission - SFChronicle.com". 2020-10-29. Archived from the original on 2020-10-29. Retrieved 2021-01-21.Trivial mention
  • "Drummond: UC Berkeley students feel the Bern". East Bay Times. 2016-02-10. Retrieved 2021-01-23.Trivial mention
  • Staff, Sareen Habeshian | (2016-10-31). "Campus students join protest efforts in North Dakota over proposed pipeline". The Daily Californian. Archived from the original on 2019-04-06. Retrieved 2021-01-23.Trivial mention
  • Alfred (2011-09-05). "It's a Co-op: Lothlorien & the limits of sustainability". It's a Co-op. Archived from the original on 2020-12-01. Retrieved 2021-01-21.Not mentioned
  • Jones, Carolyn (2007-12-02). "One year into protest, UC Berkeley's tree-sitters firmly planted". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2018-06-28. Retrieved 2021-01-23.Trivial mention
  • "Four Remaining Tree-Sitters Leave UC Berkeley Oak Grove". The Daily Californian. Archived from the original on 2016-01-21. Retrieved 2021-01-23.Not mentioned
  • "Solar Photovoltaic - Sustainability". sites.google.com. Retrieved 2021-01-27.Trivial mention- also not a reliable source
Currently the sourcing falls short of what is required to establish notability.----Pontificalibus 19:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are sources in the article which would not independently establish notability. Thank you for listing them.
Re Community, yes its about communities like lothlorien, and yes it targets a specific group of readers and organizations, but that dose not make it solely a "promotional trade publication". Research libraries have them part of their catalogues, the journal would not be there if it was a "promotional trade publication".
Re "absolutely closely associated". Because Daily Cal and Lothlorien are made of students in the same geographic location? Under your definition small town newspapers would not be able to establish notability.
Per WP:IS "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." Can you please leave a list of the vested interests Daily Cal has in publishing articles about Lothlorien. Rybkovich (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, even if you think that the Berkeley student newspaper writing about Berkeley student accommodation is acceptable in establishing notability, these sources additionally fail to meet the other requirements necessary to establish notability. The only Daily Californian article which isn't either a mere passing mention or has an explicitly declared conflict of interest is the one about ghosts. Aside from that the only in-depth article not published by the cooperative themselves is the Communities article. Even if you thought that wasn't promotional, these two sources alone are still insufficient to satisfy WP:AUD - there are no regional or non-specialist sources.--Pontificalibus 08:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the political theater article, which is centered on one of the main themes of the community which is the combination of art and politics.Rybkovich (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re WP:AUD, Community is considered academic as it is held at higher education libraries all over US, the requirement that it can't be "media of limited interest" does not exclude journals on specific academic and/or cultural topics. Rybkovich (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found a detailed description, it is not academic but what makes sense is that academic research libraries have them as a cultural anthropology source for communal living cultures. It is not a promotional trade publication. From the description:
We see Communities: Life in Cooperative Culture as a guidebook for that changing world—one that will help us find ways to live together more effectively in a new age in which we cannot ignore or escape the feedback loops, the effects of our actions and choices on the planet and on one another. If any doubt remained that we are living in an age of koyaanisqatsi (“unbalanced life” in Hopi), this past year of pandemic, racial disparity laid bare, climate chaos, threats to democratic institutions, and much more has eliminated illusions about that. And at the same time, if those of us involved in intentional community and other manifestations of cooperative culture ever doubted that our choices held value and long-term relevance and applicability for our larger world, 2020 has also eliminated our questions about that. Sharing the examples, lessons, stories, visions, practical guidance, and insights emerging from experiments in creating cooperative, regenerative culture in a world that sorely needs it has never seemed more important or urgent than it is today. Rybkovich (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a very niche limited audience per WP:AUD: "...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" (my bold). No such source is apparent, therefore this fails WP:ORG.----Pontificalibus 14:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the student cooperative article. Being vegan is neither here nor there and this largely seems like a puff-piece. Oaktree b (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Is your opinion that its a puffer piece because it describes one of the social rules of the house? Rybkovich (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A traditional fraternity or sorority or college dorm or college-associated house being vegan is a pretty dramatic fact worth noting. Maybe Oaktree b considers it to be a trivial fact, but from my experience it is quite a big deal and conveys a lot about the social nature, the composition of any such place. Hmm, actually the place is not vegan; the article states "Many residents of Lothlorien are vegetarians and vegans, but ...", which is likewise informative in a big way. I !voted "Keep" above, and i think this is ready to be closed "Keep", too. --Doncram (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lil-unique1: The last 90 days is not a good indicator, the page was taken off redirect less than a month ago. Describing a page that someone's put a lot of work into as "fringe" or "weak" that's not nice :( A great editor from the UK once said "If you are uncivil you might want to take a break because honestly? It's not worth it, there is so much more going on in life." Rybkovich (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rybkovich: I was describing the subject not the article as fringe. It is of limited appeal to the a wide audience. When I look at deletion discussions I ask myself two questions "1. is the content notable and reliably sourced?, 2. Where would someone feasibly best access the information best?". If you cannot accept feedback on your work then community-based mediums like Wikipedia might not the best place for you because no article, no matter how much someone has worked on it, no article belongs to any editor. It is not personal - you shouldn't see the decision/or others wanting to redirect an article as a personal attack on either you, your personality, your abilities or your determination/hard work. We can see from the discussion that you are passionate about the topic/subject and your work but the loudest voice doesn't necessarily win. This is a discussion and it won't be solved by repeatedly making the same point. Also just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you shouldn't assume good faith. My contribution to this discussion has no malice and does not from a procedural or ethical point of view have anything negative towards you as a person, editor, or your work. It is simply my view that the topic is not noteworthy for a standalone article. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist might be useful, as this is very much in No Consensus territory at the moment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Berkeley Student Cooperative. I accept that The Daily Californian is independent from the University of California, Berkeley financially and editorially, but it is not independent for purposes of conveying notability. As a student newspaper at a university, the Daily Cal can be expected to cover aspects of student life at the university which would not necessarily be of note to persons not affiliated with the university, and thus doesn't convey notability to student-related things at the university. I've been espousing this position on Wikipedia for many years. Most of the non-Daily Cal sources cited are incidental or unreliable. And while there's no doubt that students at Berkeley may be looking for information about housing where they may want to live on or near the campus, I would expect the Berkeley Student Cooperative, and other entities which are more- or less-connected with the university, to publish web sites about the various housing options that are available. It's not the task of an encyclopedia to serve as a housing guide. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Metropolitan90: I agree to disagree. Being a housing option is one of the reasons that the article can be used for, but not sole or central. Lothlorian stands out among other cooperative living communities. It has unusual and permanent cultural characteristics that persist even though it's group of residents is constantly changing. If you search ProQuest (its publisher) journal database for Communities Magazine 6 different articles come up. One of them is solely about the house and its culture. Communities Magazine should be considered as a respected source in the field as academic research libraries carry it. Rybkovich (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Berkeley Student Cooperative. After reading over the discussion the only thing I can determine is that The Daily Californian is the only possibly usable source. I don't think it works on it's own though. As notability requires multiple sources, that also have to be regional or national. Not in the same location of the subject. Plus, it's independence is questionable. Although, maybe that could be disregarded, but the fact that it's local and only a single source can't be. Come up with one (really it should be two) good national or even regional, but preferably national, source (more like sources) that is independent and in-depth, and I'd be more then willing to change my vote. In the meantime though, there's zero wrong with redirecting this as an alternative to deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect with a selective merge to Berkeley Student Cooperative as suggested. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the suggested target. The sourcing just isn't quite there for the reasons discussed above, mostly by Metropolitan90, which I agree with, so I can't support keeping this. SportingFlyer T·C 02:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yasir Shah. The consensus here is to merge including the nominator. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Yasir Shah[edit]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Yasir 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)

Fails WP:NLIST which says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Also, note that there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Yasir Shah (removing details of the batsmen dismissed). No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT, and would enhance the content there. International five-wicket hauls are a noteworthy achievement, and by definition, a list of them within the main article has the necessary context and explanation, so does not fail NOTSTATS in this regard. Unfortunately the nom seems to be misrepresenting the consensus of the cited RFC, which closed: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." wjematherplease leave a message... 14:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page, in particular the batter's dismissed and economy rate are really not needed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per those above. BD2412 T 06:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 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 merge to Daniel Vettori. The consensus here is to merge including the nominator. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Daniel Vettori[edit]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Daniel Vettori (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:NLIST which says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Space available on parent article to merge prose, if any. Also, note that there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Daniel Vettori (removing details of the batsmen dismissed). No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT, and would enhance the content there. International five-wicket hauls are a noteworthy achievement, and by definition, a list of them within the main article has the necessary context and explanation, so does not fail NOTSTATS in this regard. Unfortunately the nom seems to be misrepresenting the consensus of the cited RFC, which closed: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." wjematherplease leave a message... 14:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page, in particular the batter's dismissed and economy rate are really not needed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per those above. BD2412 T 06:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 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 redirect to Tamim Iqbal. No consensus to merge the content exists here, although that can be explored on the relevant talk page of the main article (or an appropriate noticeboard or Wikiproject/RfC as part of a larger discussion) if desired. The content to be potentially merged is still accessible behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Tamim Iqbal[edit]

List of international cricket centuries by Tamim Iqbal (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:NLIST. No source discusses his centuries as a group. The consensus is that such lists are not required. Störm (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Storm, fails WP:NLIST and no need to merge it to Tamim Iqbal since we have already reached a consensus not to include the list of centuries scored or 5 wicket hauls taken in the biographical articles of the cricketers. Abishe (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Recent discussions have resulted in "merge" (Martyn, Hafeez), "redirect and merge if anyone wants to" (Atherton, Latham, Chandimal), or "redirect but no consensus to merge" (Guptill, Ali). Nowhere is there consensus not to merge, and that is explicit in the closing statements. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a clear result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per those above. Clear alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 01:28, 28 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 required a bit of pondering, but in the end, policy based rationales strongly lean to delete. Rationales to keep are much less convincing and several are more emotionally based rather than policy based. In determining whether an individual passes GNG, including SIGCOV, we have to remove emotion from the discussion and look at what exists in the reliable sources, and in this case, those seeking to delete put forth a much stronger argument that there simply isn't enough significant coverage (ie: more than just listings or being "first") to pass the bar of WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frances M. Vega[edit]

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

Fail WP:SOLDIER (first female Puerto Rican soldier killed in the Iraq War is not notable and we don't have a page for each of the other 15 killed in the same Chinook crash) and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Having a gate named after her isn't notable. Mztourist (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plaque honoring Vega, during a gate dedication ceremony held at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico
  • Keep - Why am I not surprised about this nomination which is based on an essay and not on an actual Wikipedia policy? This is supposedly an encyclopedia where editors are to share their knowledge about others with the world regardless of their color, race or place of origin. Being the "first" in my book is notable and letting the rest of the world know is sharing ones knowledge which is what Wikipedia is all about regardless of what an essay may state. The Main Gate at Fort Buchanan Army Base, which is a United States Federal military base, was named the SPC Frances M. Vega gate in her honor. Vega is also listed on the 13th Sustainment Command memorial, dedicated at Fort Hood, Texas, another Federal military base, on September 17, 2010. She is listed #4 of 106 total names of the soldiers who served with the 13th Sustainment Command (formerly known as the 13th Corps Support Command). Everybody here knows that some sources which were placed on articles written years ago may no longer exist and that it is a question of doing some research and citing the newly found sources. Tony the Marine (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG in my view. The incident itself doesn't appear to be notable, either. Intothatdarkness 15:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We don't require a list of every first type of soldier killed in whatever war. She hadn't really done anything to that point regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What? This is not about a notable incident! This is about a person whose sacrifice is notable enough that two United States Military Bases which belong to the United States Government have honored said person therefore, making her notable. These military bases are: 1. Fort Buchanan Army Base, whose main gate has been named after her; 2. Fort Hood Army Base in Texas who listed her on the 13th Sustainment Command memorial with a plaque. I ask my fellow editors, do you really think that a military base of the United States would honor her if she was not notable and deserving of the honors bestowed upon her? Tony the Marine (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SOLDIER is an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". The sourcing seems quite adequate to verify the facts of the matter and, as she has received several significant honors, passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, including per WP:ANYBIO; her honors also include having a Post Office named after her. Beccaynr (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have also added additional sources to further support WP:GNG: Los Angeles Times reporting on the aftermath of the Chinook crash; a Fort Hood Sentinel report listing Vega as an OIF Hero with a brief description; and a U.S. Department of Defense news website specifically recognizing her as "the first female Puerto Rican soldier born in the United States to die in a war zone." Beccaynr (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear it was a military post office (which was her service specialty) on a base that was handed back to Iraq in 2011 and so no longer exists. Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be claar, it makes no difference, as it is an honor that isn't bestowed on just anyone, and thus sets her apart from everyone else, which is precisely the definition of notability. That said, I see no cite in the article supporting the claim, and we need to question whether or not it has an RS source, something I am doing concurrently here further below in this one edit. Mercy11 (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, notability is established by SIGCOV in multiple RS, we don't decide what makes someone notable, the extent of coverage of them does.Mztourist (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. No one said that "notability isn't established by SIGCOV in multiple RS", that "we decide what makes someone notable", or that "notability isn't based on the extent of coverage." What is being said is that an attempt to downgrade her notability by striking down the validity of the US naming a PO after her just because the PO no longer exists is, at best, a failure to recognize the significance of the honor. Mercy11 (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, notability on Wikipedia is established by SIGCOV in multiple RS. An army post office is not an honor as you suggest. I realise that you and several other Users will do everything you can to sustain pages of Puerto Rican "heroes" but they can't be treated differently from anyone else.Mztourist (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Objectively, it is DOD News, The Fort Hood Sentinel, and the recently-added El Morro making this distinction, and emphasizing Vega as a notable Puerto Rican in military history (DOD News), a notable Hispanic woman and OIF Hero (Fort Hood Sentinel), and as an example of "military women [who] proved to have a crucial role in the defense of our nation" and "paid the ultimate sacrifice." (El Morro). Beccaynr (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The LA Times article only mentions her name. It doesn't go into any detail about her, although it does for several other service members who were killed in the same crash. The first linked Fort Hood article doesn't describe her as an 'OIF Hero' and doesn't even mention her by name. The second one uses 'OIF Hero' as an article header and doesn't tie it specifically to her. The LA Times article might make for a weak 'keep' if we were talking about the shootdown itself, but it doesn't do anything in my view for this article. Intothatdarkness 15:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The LA Times article and The New York Times article I just added both seem important to include as context that supports notability; your comment about whether the incident is notable had seemed to support that, and per the reporting, at the time, it was the deadliest incident since major operations had been declared over in Iraq; at least two major news outlets covered it in depth and noted that Vega was one of the soldiers killed. The Fort Hood Sentinel article that is currently the second citation in the article has an 'OIF Heroes' header that is immediately followed by "Spc. Frances M. Vega" and a brief description, as well as a list of additional soldiers with brief descriptions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then perhaps the incident should have an article, and this be merged into it. She's listed first in the Fort Hood article because the deaths are sorted chronologically. I see no particular reason to single her out above the other 15 soldiers who were killed in the same incident, as Mztourist mentioned earlier. Intothatdarkness 16:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC) (eta) The link supposedly pointing to the dedication of the gate at Ft Buchanan goes to an archived biography of a National Guard general officer. There's no mention of the dedication at all. Intothatdarkness 16:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Fort Hood Sentinel article says the list is "in keeping with our observance of Hispanic Heritage Month" and "Let’s not forget these brave women!" - that kind of recognition, as well as the US DOD recognition of Vega as "the first female Puerto Rican soldier born in the United States to die in a war zone," and her honors and awards, appears to create an objective basis for a stand-alone article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I still don't see anything especially notable here when it comes to her individually. Intothatdarkness 17:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that level of mention conveys notability, though, we should also have an article for Sgt Ernest Bucklew, who was killed in the same crash. According to the Fort Lee Traveller [[3]] he was the only 89-Bravo solider to be killed during OIF and had a corridor in their training facility dedicated in his honor. There may be others in the crash who had the same level of recognition, and at least Bucklew's family was interviewed in some of the cited articles. Intothatdarkness 17:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also the Associated Press article about Vega that was in the article before this AfD nom, which provides further support for WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, i.e. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Beccaynr (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One very brief story in AP isn't sufficient. Mztourist (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The AP report includes information about the circumstances of Vega's death and burial, commentary from an Army spokeperson, information about her posthumous awards, as well as biographical information. In addition, there is in-depth coverage from the LAT and NYT about the Chinook crash that provides additional context to the AP report and helps develop the encyclopedic content in this article. Vega's honors and awards are documented in RS, including her posthumous Bronze Star and Purple Heart, as well as the gate named after her and the Army post office. In additional, several military-related publications specifically honor her, as noted above (DOD News, Fort Hood Sentinel, El Morro). All of this appears to support notability per WP:BASIC, which recognizes that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The AP story is the only RS about her, the other stories are peripheral about the crash and then various primary US Govt sources about the gate etc. Once again a collection of low quality sources added together to try to establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El Morro appears to specifically disclaim primary source status, because this is posted in the publication: "Contents of EL MORRO are not necessarily the official views of, or endorsed by, the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, Department of the Army or U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Buchanan," and the Fort Hood Sentinel article is an editorial. I also disagree about discounting the LAT and NYT coverage of the Chinook crash, because of the content it adds to this article and the demonstration it provides of the notable circumstances. Beccaynr (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: The article states "The post office on Camp Victory North, located in Baghdad, Iraq, was renamed the Frances M. Vega Army Post Office in a dedication ceremony in 2005." Can someone, perhaps the editor who added that statement (Marine 69-71), provide a source for this? Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a reference from US Central Command about the Frances M. Vega Army Post Office, and how after the Post Office closed, a sign from the office was moved to the U.S. Army Adjutant General's Corps Museum in 2012. Beccaynr (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At Wikipedia we have a decades' long policy that local consensus doesn't trump Wikipedia community consensus. Any group of editors can write an essay for others to read but, when used in DN discussions, essays are nothing more than local consensus. Essays are so low in the Consensus totem pole that the WP:CONSENSUS policy itself picks on them by name ("no more status than an essay"). So, no, essays not only do not compare to WP:PG but, in fact, to even use the two in the same DN argument shows a gross misunderstanding of what drives Wikipedia. As such, the WP:SOLDIER essay isn't worth a dime here, and the guide that matters here is WP:GNG and, more precisely, WP:BIO, the guideline for notability of biographies.
That said, the article should be kept because it is well-sourced with sufficient RS cites. In addition, the US Govt named a PO after her and the US military honored her with her own plaque at a major US military base. It is precisely this sort of sourcing, accolades, and legacy what defines the bio notability guideline and not personal opinions like " 'the first female Puerto Rican soldier killed in the Iraq War' is not notable" or "we don't have a page for each of the other 15 killed in the same Chinook crash", when those facts are stated by the DOD, and are not original research by editors. Just as bad is the argument "having a gate named after her isn't notable", when the DN isn't about the notability of gates. Mercy11 (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Basic Criteria of WP:BIO, SIGCOV in multiple RS is required. Its strange that you say that WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant but then claim that the US Army (not Govt) naming a post office after her, putting up a plaque and naming a gate are relevant signs of notability - that is just substituting your own subjective criteria for the community consensus of SOLDIER and so is of no greater merit. Mztourist (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Act I: "You say that WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant but then claim that the US Army naming a post office after her [is] relevant"............This is a beautiful example of the "False Exclusionary Disjunct" fallacy, namely, "If WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant, then the US Army naming a PO after her must also be irrelevant", which is just as logical as "If Fido is a 4-legged animal, then Fido must not be a dog":
  1. Fido is a 4-legged animal or Fido is a dog.
  2. Fido is a 4-legged animal.
  3. Therefore, Fido is not a dog.
Act II: Editors may be interested in how another group of editors has just determined they feel about the meaningless value of WP:SOLDIER --and how quickly it's making its way into the Decommissioning Bin, precisely because a few unlearned editors keep attempting to elevate it to part-of-the-Holy-Trinity status: Anyone interested, can go here.
Mercy11 (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic argument is a farce. Its clear that want to dismiss one set of notability criteria (SOLDIER) and then impose your own notability criteria of Post Offices and plaques. As I said read WP:BASIC because that is what is required for this and any BIO. I am fully aware of and actively participating in the Milhist discussion regarding SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if you don't understand logic; I suggest you read the "False exclusionary disjunct", which I wikilinked for you before hoping you would read; FED is a fallacy widely covered in Logic 101 courses. That was the whole point, that your entire response section starting "Read the Basic Criteria of..." was an FED fallacy and, thus, an illogical argument from you. You will need to think of something else to attack my Keep arguments. Mercy11 (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It's sort of barely notable. However, Wikipedia or part of Wikipedia has been wanting a lot more female biographies in the database. Probably not a lot of female Bronze Star winners either. They can't have it both ways. (It's also Black History month.) Female deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan were unusual with about 20 times as many men dying there, although I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere. Durindaljb (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What makes her more notable than Karina Lau, who was killed in the same crash and (according to a source as reliable as some in this article) was also awarded a bronze star? Or Ernest Bucklew (who received the same level of coverage as Vega)? Or the air crew? The military didn't honor Vega with a plaque...it was part of a unit memorial funded by the unit's association (according to the sources provided in the article). She's on there because she was part of that unit, along with a truck driver and a convoy gunner (again according to the article's linked source, which doesn't mention Vega by name at all). Most of the major RS used for this only mentions her name, and usually well-down in the article. In fact, the coverage I've seen suggests the incident itself is more notable than she was individually (as I mentioned before). Intothatdarkness 15:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the plaque honoring Vega that is linked above in this discussion as an image, it says, "Specialist Frances M. Vega epitomizes the character and patriotism of the countless American Soldiers who have answered the call to defend freedom." Beccaynr (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That does not change the fact that the plaque was NOT provided by the military as was previously asserted, or the fact that the plaque is part of a larger unit-centered memorial. That statement is also the boilerplate language you see on many plaques. I understand the desire to honor those killed in the line of duty, but so far I have seen nothing in RS that says why SHE is more significant or notable than anyone else who was killed in that incident (aside from statements about her origin, but the other Puerto Rican who was killed in the crash doesn't seem to have an article, nor does the other female bronze star winner). I think an argument (although possibly a weak one) could be made that the incident itself is notable and deserving of an article, but I remain unconvinced that Vega herself meets that bar. Intothatdarkness 17:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the plaque says it is from the Installation Management Command, so it does appear to be provided by the military. It is also not clear to me how this is related to a larger memorial, and even if it was, how this specific recognition of Vega isn't relevant to her notability, particularly in the context of her other honors, specific recognition by the military, and the coverage in independent, reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source used in the article says specifically the memorial was funded and provided by the unit association (and the article's claim she's listed number four isn't supported by the linked source). I see you're referring to the gate plaque, and I thought you were talking about the 13th ESC memorial. And as Mztourist has pointed out, the coverage of her specifically is very limited in RS (and was nonexistent in at least one source used). Accuracy is important, and there seems to be a lack of concern about that here. And I remain unconvinced that her notability is demonstrated in RS. Intothatdarkness 17:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the National Guard biography reference you mentioned above, it has been removed from the article and relaced with a reference from El Morro, which discusses the gate. References are needed for the additional honors, but the 13th ESC memorial may be less relevant when compared to the distinct honors and recognition from the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, military base gate, military post office, and recognition by the military (and commentary) for which specific RS already have been found. Beccaynr (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - plenty of coverage on different reliable sources attest to her notability.Antonio Mr. Unreliable Martin (que paso?) 22:23, 7 February, 2021 (UTC)
  • Soft Keep. Meets gng, though barely. Also - as to the argument that we don't have a page for each of the other 15 killed in the same Chinook crash, who cares? Otherstuffexists is not an argument to be accorded weight. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet GNG at all. At the rate we're going with these articles, the first "non-binary Irish person" killed in war will be the subject of a WP article. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added information to the article from a Stars and Stripes reference that discusses Vega in the context of female participation in the military generally and the Iraq war specifically, which provides further objective support for her notability, at minimum per WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (and similarly, I added information from a Chicago Tribune reference. Beccaynr (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's well developed arguments, mainly no SIGCOV; also WP:SOLDIER is not just any random essay. I oppose the interpretation of notability conventions held by Mercy11. Project-level techniques of identifying notability are very helpful for determining the best application of an SNG in specific context, and have strong consensus. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:SOLDIER, "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article," and that does appear to apply to this article. There is an Early life and Education section that includes details about her birth and family from the Associated Press, as well as information about the specific and general context of her military career sourced to the Associated Press, Stars and Stripes, and The Chicago Tribune. In the Death section, there is additional information about her military career sourced from the Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times, and her posthumous Bronze Star and Purple Heart are sourced to the Associated Press. In the Legacy section, her military career continued to serve as an inspiration, in the specific honors she received by having a military post office named after her (sourced to U.S. Central Command related to the sign being moved to a museum because it was the last active military post office in Iraq), and a gate at a military base named after her (sourced to El Morro), with a plaque that specifically honors her for epitomizing "the character and patriotism of the countless American Soldiers who have answered the call to defend freedom." I think the sources in the article about the circumstances of her military career help provide encyclopedic content as to why the military chose to honor her, and it is more than for simply being the "first female Puerto Rican soldier killed in the Iraq War." Per WP:HEY, this article has been expanded and updated to make Vega's notability more clear, per WP:BASIC and WP:SOLDIER. Beccaynr (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should read this current discussion about SOLDIER and whether or not it should even be used in deletion discussions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#rfc as you will see the consensus is that GNG/BASIC is all important. Her awards do not meet #1 of WP:ANYBIO and she still lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS and so HEY does not apply here. Mztourist (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there's enough for GNG and SOLDIER with decent sourcing. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both of the new sources added just list her name among others. No information about her specifically or any indication of notability aside from being one of a number of female soldiers who were killed between whatever date range the article cares to use is provided in either case. Intothatdarkness 15:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a prime del argument — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I believe that the statement "first female soldier of Puerto Rican descent to have died in a war zone" is a sufficient claim of significance to keep this article. This is helped by various commemorative activities. Sourcing is on the weak side, but still okay. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes first female Puerto Rican soldier any more significant than any other female soldier from anywhere else dying in a war zone? Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right; I've struck my vote, but remain neutral on keep/delete. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But what if a subjective focus on 'first female Puerto Rican soldier' is a strawperson, and Vega's notability is actually based on WP:ANYBIO, due to her significant military honors and recognition? The Iraq war was a historical breakthrough for many female soldiers, and at least two news outlets have chosen to include Vega as they covered this phenomenon in depth. The in-depth coverage of the specific and general context of her career and death adds encyclopedic content to the article and helps show that she is notable for more than simply being the 'first female Puerto Rican soldier to die in a war zone.' She also is objectively recognized for this by independent and reliable sources, so this fact also has notability per WP:BASIC, but the analysis seems incomplete if it only focuses on this one aspect, as if it is the only source of her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She does not have significant military honors. None of the provided RS go into any detail about her career, and I have yet to see in-depth coverage of her in particular in any of the RS cited. She is one among many, and her origin is the only thing (aside from gender) that's called out about her in coverage. Intothatdarkness 16:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:GNG - one source with any significant coverage and many sources with trivial coverage or mentioned in passing only. Many sources do not meet WP:RS. Bigpencils (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marine 69-71:, that sounds a lot like wikilawyering to me. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 17:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an enormously regrettable loss of a young life, but nothing here meets the notability criteria.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactor into an article on the Chinook crash itself with content on this subject in a section of the article, and with other persons killed in the crash also noted. BD2412 T 06:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this proposal helps demonstrate why a standalone article for Vega is warranted - independent and reliable sources highlight her service in particular, as noted above, and she has received distinct honors, as noted above. An article on the Chinook crash may be warranted, but due to the amount of attention Vega has received from the military and sources, it seems like it would be more appropriate and readable to link from a Chinook crash article to Vega's article for additional detail. Beccaynr (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Admittedly there's not a lot here in terms of coverage, but I think there's just enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I have added an extra source, [4], a newspaper article regarding the dedication of the Post Office named after her; the article contains some info about Vega's family background that could be added to the page. Nsk92 (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:SIGCOV. I seeing citations from internal military publications but the mainstream news publications only include her name in the reporting of the crash. The Chicago Tribune article is a list of female military casualities comes from a news feed source. She was posthumously awarded a Bronze Star but that alone doesn't meet any of the eight criteria outlined in WP:MILPERSON mainly regarding, "... an important role in a significant military event." She was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Blue Riband► 17:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Although an interesting topic, she herself is not that notable as a military person. Fails WP:GNG. Additionally, page views from the last 90 days stand at 738. Page views spiked the two days following the deletion nomination (48 and 49) respectively which is an eight of the total page views it received in the last 90 days combined. High suggestion that its not a notable topic. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews are not a valid consideration for notability in any way whatsoever. Nsk92 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yes, I know it's been open 16 days, but it hasn't been relisted at any point and discussion is still taking place so I don't see what harm 7 more days will do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I don’t see GNG satisfied neither is WP:SOLDIER met. Celestina007 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:ANYBIO and is well-sourced.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references aren't that good, when you examine them. A couple of them are remembrance-type entries, several are passing mentions and several are standard notices of fellow soldiers that are fallen, but apart from that fails WP:SIGCOV. She is not well known at all. She doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER and while it is an essay and not a policy, it is universally accepted and used at Afd to set the bar and accepted by closing administrators, as an indication of notability. She was also one of several people in the helicopter, there is nothing that makes her stand out amongst her fellow soldiers, and the assertion in the lede as the first... is absurd as well. There is no policy in Wikipedia anywhere that states such an assertion. Perhaps if it was a truly unique experience it would be possible, like the first women to land on the mars. She was alive and her life did have meaning. scope_creepTalk 12:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the discussion was relisted, additional independent and reliable sources have been added, including a 2004 Los Angeles Times article that provides biographical information (which supports notability per WP:SOLDIER) and is more than a standard notice of fallen soldiers, of which there are many, and typically are simply lists of names and sometimes brief information about the circumstances of their death; an additional Chicago Tribune source with another expert, in addition to the one already included in the article, commenting on the significance of Vega and the service of her fellow female soldiers during the Iraq war; a 2003 article from El Nuevo Herald identifying Vega as one of four Puerto Rican soldiers, which is also different than a standard notice. Before the discussion was relisted, a book source was added to the article that found Vega worthy of notice as the first female soldier of Puerto Rican descent to have died in a war zone. All of these newly-added sources appear to add further objective support for WP:BASIC notability, because this is not trivial coverage and "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." The assertion is made in the lede because multiple independent and reliable sources make this assertion; it is not WP:ORIGINAL. In addition, it is not the only assertion of notability, due to the significant honors Vega has also received from the military, per WP:ANYBIO, that are distinct from her fellow soldiers. Beccaynr (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reply, I lookup the LA Times article of November 4, 2003. She's mentioned in just two sentences as having been from LA and stationed at Fort Hood. Passing mention, even in highly respected news sources, does not meet our standard of WP:SIGCOV. As for the Chicago Tribune the March 11, 2004 article, it's behind a paywall but a search for the name "Vega" shows up only under her photograph which is in a line with the others killed in the incident and a mention of another soldier stationed with her. I believe what we have here are multiple independent sources reporting a helicopter crash from enemy attack that included some human interest background on the soldiers killed in that event. Per WP:ONEEVENT the general rule is to cover the event and not the person unless is becomes clear that the person had a significant and singular role in it. We also don't normally weigh opinion pieces in establishing notability. There is nothing that stands out about her military career had she not been killed. WP:SOLDIER does not have any modifying criteria for gender or ethnicity. Blue Riband► 22:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned most of this above, as well. At least two other individuals killed in the same event received similar levels of recognition, meanings hers was not singular in any real way. Intothatdarkness 02:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The latest LA Times article added is from 2004, and there are two Chigago Tribune sources now included in the article. I think that these are not passing mentions, including because the 2004 LA Times article includes biographical information, and both Chicago Tribune sources include commentary from experts that support Vega's notability. These are not trivial mentions that might otherwise exist in standard lists of soldiers killed in war; Vega is repeatedly named and discussed as part of a larger notable context, and this helps support why Vega has been distinctly honored by the military, per WP:ANYBIO. Beccaynr (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr, The book, per WP:SELFPUBLISH is likely not a reliable source. It is a self-published book (Dorrance Publishing Company) so it shouldn't be in the article and does not count towards SIGCOV. TJMSmith (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per not meeting WP:SIGCOV as explained by Blue Riband and Intothatdarkness above. WP:NOTMEMORIAL comes to mind. A string of mentions does not = independent and reliable significant coverage. I tried to do a WP:HEYMANN but didn't find sources to expand. I trimmed most of the unsourced/poorly sourced information. TJMSmith (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately it looks like there isn't enough coverage of her out there to pass the normal notability guidelines and apparently the specific ones for soldiers has been depreciated. So, I don't know what's left to keep the article based on. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG based on the legacies and honors she received. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the legacies and honors don't seem to be notable. The Bronze Star medal alone does not meet the notability criteria for WP:SOLDIER. The naming of the base post office wasn't even long term as only the sign, and not the name, was relocated when the base closed. The addition of a name to a memorial for fallen military members is hardly out of the ordinary. From reading some of the editor comments here it appears that several editors rightly or wrongly are pleading, "How can you take this bio away from an ethnic minority woman who died in service to her country?" Do the sources here meet WP:GNG if this soldier was a Euro-American male? Blue Riband► 16:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, this all goes away if it's just a random white dude. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think per WP:IAR and WP:NEXIST, this article should be kept. Per WP:NEXIST, there are four independent and reliable sources that offer context about the significance of Vega's service and her military career that have been removed from the article. I apologize that my introduction of the expert opinions in the Chicago Tribune sources was clumsy; these sources both namecheck Vega and add to what was said by the Stars and Stripes source in the article about the role of women, and I think they both help address the concern raised above, and help support why this article should not go away per WP:IAR. I also think the significance of the Chinook crash discussed in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, which both also namecheck Vega, can be included to improve the article; while it may not weigh heavily towards notability, it adds encyclopedic content. In addition, the focus on Vega being the first female soldier of Puerto Rican descent to have died in a war zone has never been a subjective determination by editors, but something noted by sources, such as the DOD; she also has a main gate of a military base named in her honor with a plaque that highlights more than this fact. Beccaynr (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All your repetition does is highlight that the Chinook shootdown MAY be notable (although I think much of the coverage smacks of recentism), but does nothing to indicate that Vega was notable. Other soldiers killed in the incident have received at least as much coverage (more in one case) and received similar delayed recognition by various commands (making her recognition far less unique). The sources are mostly namechecks, and I tend to read "adds encyclopedic content" to mean padding to a thin article. I don't recall any sources that discussed her time in the military in any detail. The Bronze Star (without V device) was (as far as I can determine) awarded posthumously, and may have given to every solider killed in the shootdown (I've been able to verify at least two other awards from the same incident). Again, while this might make the shootdown itself notable (and I don't necessarily think it does), it does make Vega's award less notable than it might appear at first brush. Intothatdarkness 15:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be repetitive - I was trying to add additional rationale to what I have already stated, address changes that have been made to the article since I last commented, explain why more more robust encyclopedic content would help improve Wikipedia, and note that Blue Riband►'s recent comment didn't mention the gate or plaque, nor the sources that specifically discuss or mention Vega in the context of her being female and of Puerto Rican descent. I also don't agree that providing context and content about the circumstances of Vega's service, including in the form of expert opinions, is 'padding' - I think it would instead help improve Wikipedia. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Beccaynr by my count you have made 19 comments on this AFD which is becoming WP:BLUDGEON. Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Zero indication that she meets WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Krakhmaleva[edit]

Sofia Krakhmaleva (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 concern was A BLP on a youth-level handball player with no assertion or evidence of notability. The sources in the article either don't mention her at all or contain just the bare minimum database info such as name, DOB, nationality etc. My WP:BEFORE search only comes up with passing mentions or more bare minimum database entries. There is nothing to suggest a passing of WP:SPORTCRIT (youth level sports is not generally considered 'the highest level' and she has not competed at the equivalent of these championships at the senior level) nor is there any realistic chance of passing WP:GNG.

Contested with she plays in the highest Russian league which is the second best league in the world [5]

There is no SNG for handball so players are expected to meet GNG. The only source that I could find on her was this which is a brief post on her club's own website so therefore does not qualify as an independent source (see WP:IS) and, therefore, does not confer notability. Players could get presumed notability through SPORTCRIT if they have played in a major international competition at the highest level, but Krakhmaleva hasn't played in the European Championship, nor the World Championship nor the Olympics. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of those sources address the concern that Krakhmaleva does not meet WP:GNG, which is currently the only applicable guideline. GNG requires there to be independent sources addressing Krakhmaleva directly and in detail. Note that the only source even coming close to doing this is the one that is from her club's own website, which is therefore not an independent source. Competing in those competitions that you mention do not confer notability since they are not the highest international level of handball (the Olympics, World Championships and European Championships all exist). Regarding beach handball, if it can be established that the overwhelming majority of players competing in such a tournament pass GNG, then maybe a guideline can be introduced which means all sportspeople competing in that tournament are presumed notable, however, the fact that Krakhmaleva can compete in all 10 games in that tournament and still not get any GNG-level coverage would make the likelihood of such a guideline gaining support unlikely. If you can provide WP:THREE sources addressing Krakhmaleva directly and in detail I will happily change my stance. Thanks Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a clear illustration of how minimal the coverage of beach handball is, do a search on any players listed at Hungary women's national beach handball team; almost all of them would fail GNG comprehensively. This is a team with a much better record than Russia (twice European champions and most recently runner up in 2019). I would strongly oppose any guideline that suggests that people playing beach handball at any level are notable by default. Also, most of the players in the most recent World Championship final seem to fail GNG with the exception of the players that already have an established career in normal handball. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven help *rolleyes* -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 23:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Rougeau[edit]

Vincent Rougeau (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:SIGCOV. Sources appear only primary Jenyire2 20:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. has the nominator carried out WP:Before and looked for sources that are not primary? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy keep both per blatant failure of nominator to perform WP:BEFORE and for a nomination statement that does not even address the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF. This is a brand-new article, not in great shape as nominated, but WP:DINC. Subject appears to pass WP:PROF#C6 both as head of a major scholarly association and as head of a notable institution of higher learning. Notability in general does not require sources to be non-primary (although for WP:GNG they should be independent, reliable, and in-depth) and WP:PROF does not even require them to be independent. And in this case, independent reliable secondary sources appear plentiful in Google News searches. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep — Per rationale by David Eppstein. I honestly do not believe also that a thorough before search was conducted. Celestina007 (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per the above comments. It is pretty clear from what's in the article already that WP:PROF#C6 is satisfied on several counts. Moreover, a GNews search shows plenty of newscoverage as well, so likely passes WP:BIO too. It also seems clear that the nominator is not well familiar with the deletion process and they would be well advised to ease off with Special:NewPagesFeed for a while. Nsk92 (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep for the obvious reasons. I'd also advise Jenyire2 to stop afding stuff until they're better able to understand our criteria. CUPIDICAE💕 11:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - obviously meets WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 TT me 17:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that notability is clear. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY and WP:PROF. Dean of a leading law school and a major independent college. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 26 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) 23:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kjell Jensen[edit]

Kjell Jensen (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: "There is Significant coverage cited in the article, and there would be no problem digging up more". Fails WP:NFOOTBALL (as an amateur footballer with a famous brother). Although the deprod makes a vague wave to WP:SIGCOV there seems little realistic prospect of sustained, non-routine WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Nielsen, Atle (2008). Sportsklubben Brann: 100 år med tro, håp og kjærlighet (in Norwegian). Bergen: Schibsted. pp. 247–251. ISBN 978-82-516-2658-3. Yes Looks to have been written by a veteran radio journalist/writer of national repute Yes Looks to have been written by a veteran radio journalist/writer of national repute ? I would accept this for WP:V but don't think it helps much to establish WP:N. I would be very surprised if four of the 251 pages are given over to "significant coverage" specifically of Kjell Jensen. ? Unknown
Vaksdal, Birgitte (2008-07-09). "Kjell Jensen er død". Bergensavisen. Retrieved 2009-06-01. ? Local newspaper but looks to be copied from Brann.no Yes No Three line obituary in local paper, which has a circulation roughly half that of the Teesside Gazette. ✘ No
"Kjell Jensen". Sesonger i Eliteserien. Aftenposten. Archived from the original on 25 February 2012. Retrieved 26 June 2009. Yes No The information (zero appearances) is demonstrably wrong. No Profile page at a defunct 'stats' website which has his date of birth, a generic placeholder image, and says he made zero appearances. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KFM Records[edit]

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

A record label that does not appear to be one of the more influential or important indie record labels, therefore not passing WP:NMUSIC. A WP:BEFORE search under "Knife Fighting Monkeys" and "KFM Records" yields little meaningful coverage and certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. No obvious alternative to deletion either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article lacking any independent sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. COI is strongly present, as the article was created by one of the bands that are signed to this label (The Magnificents), also, a user named Kfmrecords had edits in this article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:02, 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 redirect to Jack Armstrong (artist)#Cosmic Starcruiser. Sandstein 11:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Starcruiser[edit]

Cosmic Starcruiser (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 general notability guideline. Only one reliable source (HuffPost). A Google search did not find any mainstream sources. Only incoming link is from the article on the co-creator. No articles in other Wikipedia languages. This article has similar content to Cosmic Starship which was recently PRODded by Bri and deleted by Liz and was about a similar work by the same artist. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Extensionalism "X". Verbcatcher (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jack Armstrong (artist) - The sourcing on this art piece is not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG as a stand alone article. The artist's page already discusses it, though, with the one good source from this page already present there, so a Redirect without merge would probably be fine. Rorshacma (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very short page, and seems promotional. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:59, 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. Sandstein 11:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kickidler[edit]

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

Promotional article. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL monitoring software, coverage largely consists of WP:ROUTINE reviews. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the article is not of a promo. Before I had already edited it, and made it short. Lots of reviews links i didnt include there. --Oh.provista (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oh.provista (talk • contribs) 06:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geir Hasund[edit]

Geir Hasund (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: "nonsense". But demonstrably the article subject doesn't meet either WP:NFOOTBALL (having played well before the Norwegian men's football league was 'fully professional') or WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Nielsen, Atle (2008). Sportsklubben Brann: 100 år med tro, håp og kjærlighet (in Norwegian). Bergen: Schibsted. pp. 247–251. ISBN 978-82-516-2658-3. Yes Looks to have been written by a veteran radio journalist/writer of national repute Yes Looks to have been written by a veteran radio journalist/writer of national repute ? I would accept this for WP:V but don't think it helps much to establish WP:N. I would be very surprised if four of the 251 pages are given over to "significant coverage" specifically of Geir Hasund. ? Unknown
Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 19 at the Norwegian Football Federation (in Norwegian) No Published by the national association Yes No A simple list of stats which the national association compiles for every player in the Country ✘ No
Eikrem, Allan (25 September 2012). "Hasund er tidenes Hødd-spiller" (in Norwegian). Sunnmørsposten. Archived from the original on 4 January 2014. Retrieved 25 September 2012. Yes Local newspaper ? Article inaccessible (dead link) No Routine coverage in a local newspaper article ✘ No
"Geir Hasund heteste navnet i fotballens høstjakt" (in Norwegian). Norwegian News Agency. 8 October 1992. Yes Norwegian News Agency Yes I expect so although I am unable to access it due to it being offline No Looks like more routine transfer speculation after he banged in a few goals in the second tier ✘ 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}}.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there appears to be sufficient coverage. GiantSnowman 19:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have been somewhat of an important player in SK Brann history. There are sources out there, this is via the Daily Mail to lfhistory.net Which is part of Liverpool history recognising the player, I expect there are more off-line sources newspaper articles in Norwegian archives. Completely disagree with this nomination and article assessment. Govvy (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I wonder whether you correctly understand this process. If a passing mention in a deprecated source is the best you can find then your keep vote doesn't carry too much weight. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:18, 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) 23:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jahmill Flu[edit]

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

Passes NFOOTY with 5 Eerste Divisie appearances around 10 years ago, but I see little evidence of any GNG-level coverage. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets NFOOTBALl easily; needs improving, not deleting. I have noticed that @Bocanegra: has been improving lots of Dutch articles recently, and I am sure they can work their magic here... GiantSnowman 19:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a total and complete failure of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Made several appearances in fully professional league. This supports keeping the article. Thanks for the trust @GiantSnowman:, I'll see what I can do. Bocanegra 23:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Just about enough to pass GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Football player who meets the professional standard. A totally unnecessary nomination. gidonb (talk) 01:48, 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 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. North America1000 07:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Westland Row[edit]

CBS Westland Row (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 WP:ROTM school, search finds nothing beyond primary sources and directory listings etc. — fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL. Go for it! Fob.schools (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Hansson[edit]

Patrik Hansson (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: "Yes it was." (?) Fails WP:FOOTBALL having played before the Norwegian or Swedish men's football leagues were nominally 'fully professional'. More importantly, it heavily fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for the Allsvenskan being "fully professional" at that time? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:56, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Microbridge[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Microbridge (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 notability guidelines and references only single primary source. Could not find additional references. Allanlw 02:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Allanlw 02:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Not the largest number of opinions, but it seems clear nonetheless that there is significant coverage to satisfy gng. Fenix down (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joar Hoff[edit]

Joar Hoff (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: "he ought to pass GNG as he has won the Norwegian First Division as a manager. a quick google search gave me https://www.aftenposten.no/sport/fotball/i/70BAM3/fotballtrener-joar-hoff-er-doed and https://www.fosna-folket.no/nyheter/2020/11/23/Joar-48-har-f%C3%A5tt-meitemarken-til-%C3%A5-trives-der-det-tidligere-var-fj%C3%A6ramark-23046589.ece, and there multiple articles in the norweigan newspaper archive" Still fails WP:NFOOTBALL as winning a part-time, semi-pro league in the 1970s is not inherently notable. The coverage alluded to looks like mostly lightweight sports-reporting fluff, falling short of WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ove Jørstad[edit]

Ove Jørstad (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: "not uncontroversial; the ref in the external links would suggest some degree of notability and there are plenty of results here - https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Ove%20J%C3%B8rstad%22&mediatype=aviser" Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and the coverage alluded to at the nb.no archive looks to fall well short of the WP:SIGCOV required for WP:GNG Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:32, 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Børge Hernes[edit]

Børge Hernes (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: "played in the champions league so not uncontroversial". Still fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelappan Thampuran (cricketer, born 1937)[edit]

Kelappan Thampuran (cricketer, born 1937) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, nothing about them in sources. Störm (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 29 games for two different teams is a fair number to wonder whether there would be a significant amount of information in non-Internet sources. In any case, I wonder what the sources are for the players from Travancore-Cochin that their pictures were taken much later in life - perhaps they were used in some form of non-Internet printed media which we don't have access to. Bobo. 21:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete verrifiability means that the significant coverage in multiple reliable indepdent 3rd party sources needs to come before we create an article. Unless someone actually identifies such, we are obligated to delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether it would be possible to contact Cricket Archive to do so - of course the same argument can be made for the fact that we don't know who "CricPhotos" is and neither CA or CI make these clear. You can never be sure of the sourcing of images unless they are cited sufficiently. Not a badger, by the way. Just an interesting curiosity which seems to only apply for this side. Bobo. 21:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 29 first-class appearances across 10 years or so is surely sufficient for there to be a reasonable presumption of coverage in Indian sources. If this was an English or an Australian cricketer, we wouldn't want for places to look: I find it hard to believe that in cricket-mad India there wouldn't be similar coverage hidden, to me at least, behind a language barrier. Johnlp (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I doubt whether this is a duplicate article for Kerala Varma Kelappan Thampuran? If not please add a distinguish tag in both the articles later. Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 12:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinions are split all ways. Discussion on redirecting or merging should happen on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Beeson[edit]

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

Nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We simply don't need articles like this. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. More likely to be notable for his extensive minor counties career than 2 LA matches (NOTE: none of these matches meet the "highest domestic level" standard defined by NCRIC); article refocussed accordingly. Any significant coverage is likely to be in offline sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; per my earlier comment and he was also captain of Lincs for several years. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:CRIN (or the summarised form thereof in WP:NCRIC) by virtue of playing in the Gillette Cup, which was List A and at the time the highest level of domestic one-day cricket available in England. DevaCat1 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Lincolnshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 2 List-A matches, but I could find no coverage, even from when he was Lincolnshire captain. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches but no coverage, is deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:25, 26 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Lived In My House?[edit]

Who's Lived In My House? (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 fails WP:TVSERIES and WP:GNG. A wp:before search yields nothing of interest. There are also no incoming links to the article. ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 18:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 18:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 18:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm also not finding anything hinting at notability. They were, however, casting in 2014! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with average daily page views of 1 (often 0), a show that had just 4 episodes 7 years ago and no notability evident, would suggest to me this shouldn't be an article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see or find anything notable here. Jeepday (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - failed reality show with thin audience and almost nonexistent reviews. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 26 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XS International[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:NCORP. Sources are either Wikipedia articles, PR pieces, or general reference articles - no reliable information about subject. Cannot find any reliable sources in web search. Article is basically promotional in nature. Rogermx (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I'm seeing when I look for sources are PR sites and republished releases. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - promotional article about a non-notable company. MER-C 16:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The creation of this article was the last action of an account active for 4 days in 2013, shortly after the previous instance had been speedy-deleted. Past version of this instance have included references such as this - a press release covering this and associated firms. A Gartner search lists 3 paywalled reports in 2016-7 with what appear to be listings of this firm among other vendors in their sector. All of this indicates a firm going about its business but I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability here. AllyD (talk) 15:55, 25 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. North America1000 00:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toru Suzuki (darts player)[edit]

Toru Suzuki (darts player) (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 dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:45, 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) 18:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chengan Liu[edit]

Chengan Liu (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 dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:41, 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Di Zhuang[edit]

Di Zhuang (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 dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with your comment, but he at least participated in a major tournament despite losing in the first round. That looks notable to me. -Cupper52Discuss! 17:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG — Amkgp 💬 15:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero professional wins; tragically cut short career. Bearian (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage found is not significant enough to pass WP:GNG and career achievements are not significant enough to merit an article otherwise Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:GNG is the gold standard for notability, and all other criteria derive their authority solely from it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basit Saeed[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another in a very long line of non-notable players of cricket.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one source, short article, and nothing signifying notability of any kind, i concurr with Johnpacklambert Totalstgamer (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing first class and List A cricket. This article needs to be improved, not deleted. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has played 4 FC and 1 List-A matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The keep arguments above are entirely non-convincing; NCRIC is supposed to be an indicator of whether a subject is likely to meet GNG (which is always the guideline). Since they do not appear to pass GNG (a search did not yield anything but the typical database mentions), them passing NRIC is absolutely and entirely irrelevant. And NRCIC is being questioned, anyway, because of cases like this, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#RfC_on_NCRIC... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not my strongest delete, as there is one non-scorecard match report, but match reports generally aren't significant coverage. If there's significant coverage of him in non-English sources I'd reconsider, but as it stands this fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Salam Bhatti[edit]

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

Nothing notable about him, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 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 merge to Colab. Daniel (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colab Members[edit]

Colab Members (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 an appropriate list for Wikipedia.This is just a membership roster. Per what Wikipedia is not, "Simple listings" of clients/customers/members and such of a run of the mill group shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I objected earlier about this same membership directory being in Colab but that wasn't a suggestion to branch off to a separate article and link articles pointing back at one another like a mesh network. Graywalls (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain Stripping artist groups or art movements of the names of their artist members renders the pages almost meaningless and is not done on Wikipedia. See the Abstract expressionism Wikipedia page for example. It contains a list of the notable abstract expressionists. Also the Dada Wikipedia page contains a list of notable Dadaists. The same form should be maintained for Colab: an art historically important group from the early 1980s. Claims by Graywalls that it is merely "run of the mill" above are ill informed and appear biased against art historical significance. Colab Members is not simply a what Wikipedia is not issue. After the list of Colab Members was removed from the Colab page by Graywalls, I was forced to salvage the art historical data there, apparently constructed over many years, by creating the Colab Members page in question. Actually, the list, if only of the artists with Wikipedia pages, should be restored to the Colab page, in my respectful opinion.Valueyou (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge of notable or key members (with sourcing) back into Colab. Can be dealt with via columns to avoid being too long. StarM 17:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Colab per WP:ATD, this is a matter for normal editing to resolve. Whether there's value in having the membership be comprehensive instead of just limited to notable members only is a matter for talk page discussion there, but clearly some coverage of its membership is relevant to that topic. NOTDIR does not dictate otherwise, and the nom incorrectly seems to think it forbids us from listing people associated with an article topic. postdlf (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Postdlf: I didn't mean that judiciously selected and properly cited names are not allowed, but what amounts to a roster of essentially all members is within NOTDIRECTORY. I nom'd it, because the long roster that's not suitable in the article was created as a new article as soon as I removed it. If it was a pre-exiting list, I would have re-directed. Graywalls (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDIR doesn't give such specific answers or directions. What matters is what is appropriate or relevant for this subject. postdlf (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Colab, which ought to have a section that lists notable members. I do think the list is too long. Limit it to members whose article makes mention of their membership and where that claim is supported by independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or smerge back (merge selectively). Very few of these artists are notable. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 26 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 14:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luxo Jr 2: The Reckoning[edit]

Luxo Jr 2: The Reckoning (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, fan-made film (not by Pixar). ... discospinster talk 16:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 16:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about a sequel to a film that was a major development in the animation industry. Other articles have Wikipedia pages about their sequels so why can't this one have one? What makes one think that Luxo Jr. 2 is a non-notable fan-made film. One doesn't even know Shark Fantastic is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quit42 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well, it's definitely a fan film, not an official Pixar production. And, like any film, reliable sources are necessary to prove that the film is notable per WP:NFILM. This article has zero sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable fan film that fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG by quite a long way and not even an assertion of notability let alone evidence. If there were a WP:A7 for films, this would surely qualify. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This exists and can be watched, but that doesn't make it notable. Notability is also not inherited by the original film's notability. Keep in mind that even if this was an official sequel rather than a fan film, this short would still not inherit notability. The fact that this is a fan film has little bearing on this other than the fact that fan films almost never gain enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. There are just too many of them and too few outlets that are interested in covering them. It's nothing against the short film. There's just no coverage that can be found. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NFILM/WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. I declined speedy deletion because I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lynn (preacher). I was going off Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lynn (pastor) in 2015. This is a recreation after an AfD in January, so speedy deletion is correct. Apologies for the confusion. Fences&Windows 17:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Lynn (pastor)[edit]

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

Speedy for re-creating article that was previously deleted in AFC was denied because it was substantially different than article that was deleted in 2015. I don’t know about that article but I do know the article I was thinking of was deleted in January 2021 for non notability. This article is a bit of an improvement but I still believe the issues raised in that discussion are valid here.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lynn (preacher) ThurstonMitchell (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:03, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kimball Cariou[edit]

Kimball Cariou (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:BLP of a person whose primary notability claim is being the leader of a fringe political party without legislative representation. As always, this is not an automatic notability freebie under WP:NPOL that would exempt a person from actually having to clear WP:GNG on his sourceability, but the sources here aren't getting him over GNG -- eight of the thirteen footnotes are just raw election results from his unsuccessful candidacies in federal and provincial elections, one is his "our leader" profile on the self-published website of his own party, two are his "our contributors" profiles on the self-published websites of media outlets he's written for, and one is from a non-notable blog -- which means 12 of the 13 footnotes are doing absolutely nothing at all to establish his notability. And the only source that actually represents real media coverage isn't about him, but just briefly namechecks him as a giver of soundbite in an article whose core subject is the general phenomenon of minor parties -- which means it isn't substantive enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only real source in play, because it isn't about him. As always, the notability test in a situation like this is not the ability to use election results tables and staff profiles from his own employers as technical verification that he exists -- it's the ability to use substantive and detailed media coverage about his work in the role as verification that he and his work have been independently deemed as significant. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 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 merge to MFA Oil. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Break Time (convenience store)[edit]

Break Time (convenience store) (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 cannot find coverage sufficient to pass WP:NCORP. There are currently no independent secondary reliable sources and all I can find is trade press. [9][10][11] Fences&Windows 14:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 14:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 14:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 14:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to MFA Oil, its parent company. I agree that the convenience stores do not pass the WP:GNG or WP:NCORP on their own. However, a quick search shows that MFA Oil, the parent company, probably does (even though its own article is currently in pretty bad shape). So, merging this there would make sense. Rorshacma (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I edited this page extensively and i did the same thing with MFA. Id just like to point that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12welveon13rteen (talk • contribs) 19:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to MFA Oil per Rorshacma, plus it would help beef up the more notable parent article. Cordially, History DMZ (HQ) † (wire) 02:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to MFA Oil. I'm actually familiar with this chain, and I thought it might be notable, but after looking for coverage, I'm inclined to agree with the above that WP:NORG isn't met. The potential sources generally fail WP:ORGCRIT or are focused mainly on the parent company. Merging into the MFA article is the best way to handle this. Hog Farm Talk 20:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postpone? Let me see if, this week, I can dig up better sourcing, thereby more extensive information, before throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There are 74 stores, and it's ranked 92 by CSPdailynews [2], so it would seen to be just distinctive enough, on that basis. The chain even has it's own distinctive website <https://mybreaktime.com/> (which is one thing that needs included.) I've no strong feelings about this one way or the other, so I'll agree to whatever's decided. I simply think it'd be a shame to waste what's been started.        —  BoringJim (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of AfDs is that on average discussions are closed after 1 week, so theoretically you have until Feb. 26. But note also that the Break Time website's Alexa Global Ranking stands at #5,754,697, which is very low. G'Day, History DMZ (HQ) † (wire) 02:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that having two websites hurts their Alexas ranks for both. I'd also bet that there's other companies with Wikipedia articles whose site rank is lower. I'm not dismissing what you're saying - just that I'm not sure it should be a major gauge of a company's encyclopedic worth.
Another thought; as a separate entity, Break Time is ripe for some private equity firm to swoop in and make MFA Oilan offer they can't refuse (a common practice, lately).

I've been toying around with a basically ground-up re-write. Since this is my first time doing something this extensive, no doubt the bots'n'bullies will circle this like vultures. Clearly, I'm far from finished, but would appreciate feedback on what I've got thus far; User:BoringJim/Break Time (edit)        —  BoringJim (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the draft looks promising and a clear improvement over the current live version. I would still suggest, per the nominator's opening comment above, to avoid "trade press" and to not lose sight of WP:ORGSIG and how important it is that reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it. Cheers, History DMZ (HQ) † (wire) 14:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fences and windows, Rorshacma, History DMZ, Hog Farm, and HighKing:, please see my total re-write of the article in question. Perhaps it might change your mind on your vote?
This is my first such endeavor of this magnitude, and I kinda rushed the end to meet today's deadline. Fortunately (unfortunately?) I actually have more I can improve upon.        —  BoringJim (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned editors might not reply in time, so I recommend leaving a "note to closing admin" at the very bottom of this page asking the closer to take into consideration your draft before making a final decision. History DMZ (HQ) † (wire) 06:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone else can? Last time I called for an Admin, it went badly.        —  BoringJim (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BoringJim to save time, can you post links (or identify specific links in the article) that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability? Right now the article is refbombed with 48 references. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So we want to avoid the "echo chamber" of stuff entirely based on company announcements or trivial events. So a "Q&A" session on a "new look" fails WP:ORGIND. An announcement on the appointment of the 5th CEO fails WP:ORGIND. etc. HighKing++ 11:48, 27 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Name[edit]

Behind the Name (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 website, fails WP:NWEB, no meaningful coverage CUPIDICAE💕 14:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of those awards make it notable. Further, there's no actual coverage and nothing that meets NWEB. CUPIDICAE💕 12:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do. The mentions/awards on USA Today, Yahoo! and Britannica.com make it notable. See also its Alexa Global Ranking at #20,482 which is quite decent and the equivalent of, for example, Eurosport (see its own global ranking almost at #20,000). I see no harm in re-draftifying. Cheers, History DMZ (HQ) † (wire) 23:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.Priime[edit]

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

Declined multiple times at Draft:P.Priime and this version is no improvement on those declined versions. There is nothing here that demonstrates a passing of WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. There is strong consensus that passing mentions and a couple of Q&As, generally, are not enough to meet GNG. My WP:BEFORE search is coming up with the same few sources already in the article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:12, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinesh Sinha[edit]

Vinesh Sinha (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 businessperson with unreliable sources. The prev. version was deleted speedy as advertising, and this is not much better. It was able to evade AfC because the contibutor had accumulate the necessary number of edits by creating the now -deleted article.

The accomplishments are minor: At AfD discussion in the past few years, awards for 30 under 30 and the like have been usually taken to indicate "Not Yet Notable". They're purely PR awards, they are organized so a great many people get the awards in mone or another of the very many categories, and have no other significance. Similarly the top 100 listing designed for promotion, with multiple categories. And the one possibly significant award listed he didn;t win, it's just a nomination.

He founded two non-notable companies. he invested in another. The promotional nature is even more clearly seen in the infobox's education section: "London School of Commerce (Dropped out)" which reminds me of the legendary CV that included "BA (failed)" 00 Tho it's fair to say we have thousand of bios which list "attended" not "graduated" -- some of these are typically non-degree programs, but others, we should re-examine.

The photo is an obviously profesionala portrait, licensedd here as "own work"

I assume an undeclared coi editor, for they've worked on nothing else

the references are what we'd expect: mere notices abut either him or his companies, or promotional write-ups about the minor awards, and promotional interviews where the subject (or their PR representative) is allowed to say whatever they care to. Consensus now is these are not independent. DGG ( talk ) 10:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, looks like created by WP:UPE for WP:PROMOTION only. — Amkgp 💬 13:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spammy article. Merely establishing businesses and/representing it doesn't make anyone notable. RationalPuff (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the nominator has summed the situation up perfectly. Purely promotional, not notable and inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Take this to Linkedin or some other place Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Derrick[edit]

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

I'm concerned that Derrick doesn't appear to be notable enough to have an article. The sourcing issues are similar to those at related articles Crane (musician) and Box-o-Plenty Records, both also up for deletion. I found this blog post but little else really about him. Most of the article appears to have been written by Derrick himself so there are WP:COI and WP:V issues present. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not finding significant coverage over time in reliable sources for this musician. Does not meet criteria for notability per WP:GNG. Seems like possible WP:COATRACKing to D. Boon and the Minutemen. And there's the COI/Autobio issues mentioned in the Nom. Netherzone (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. I have no doubt that Derrick was a longtime friend and colleague of the notable D. Boon, and the association has been mentioned in some reliable media sources. However, those sources are always about Boon, and Derrick is mentioned briefly for his sideman duties. Elsewhere in Wikipedia he is listed as a co-writer and producer on some Boon items, and that is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:33, 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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indescribably Blue[edit]

Indescribably Blue (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 - about a song, not an album - has no references that meet the requirements of WP:NMUSIC. All links given miss the mark. Whiteguru (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Elvis Presley: While this recording do meet the single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart per wp:nalbum, it also say Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography. Comparing this article with other similar articles, this article is definitely on the short side. A wp:before search did not reveal any additional usable sources. Also, considering it was released in 1966, it is unlikely there will be new usable sources that help expand the article beyond a stub, so merging is more appropriate. I have checked out Elvis Presley and found no mention of this song in the article at all. ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 14:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because (a) I've just added a couple more sources; (b) this song was a top 40 chart hit in both the UK and the USA, which suggests notability per WP:NMUSIC; and (c) I can't find a good redirect target, because I haven't been able to find an Elvis Presley soundtrack or album with which this song would be associated. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Metropolitan90's edit and rationale. Carbrera (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Metropolitan90's edit and rationale. The article seems robust enough IMO.--Amelia-the-comic-geek (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:NSONG. Onel5969 TT me 18:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Metropolitan90. Article is good enough to pass WP:NSINGLE. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elvis Presley singles discography. Elvis The Music is not independent—it is operated by Sony which owns the label that released the record. Neither is a quote from a member of his entourage. One quote from a biographer is not significant coverage. I looked on ProQuest and there wasn't much either; maybe one line from Variety. WP:NSONGS only says charting "suggest[s] that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful", not that it is inherently notable. This is highly unlikely to grow beyond a stub. Heartfox (talk) 21:08, 25 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 14:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naciye Kara[edit]

Naciye Kara (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 concern was Only capped at U17 level so fails WP:NFOOTBALL and the best source found in a WP:BEFORE search was this so there is nothing to show a passing of WP:GNG.

The article was then overhauled and the PROD removed but there are still no sources that establish notability through GNG. Full source analysis to follow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageID=30&kisiID=974339 Yes Yes No Just a profile page on the national FA website which every footballer has ✘ No
https://www.sakaryayenigun.com.tr/baianlar-2nci-oldu-haberi-17817.jspx Yes Yes No Mentioned once in a local paper ✘ No
http://www.adapostasi.com/11079-futbolun-perileri-ccedil-ami-dikti-haberi.html Yes ? No Name check ✘ No
http://www.adapostasi.com/13203-futbolun-perileri-2-rsquo-de-2-yapti-haberi.html Yes ? No Name check ✘ No
https://www.uefa.com/womenschampionsleague/match/2020201--konak-vs-hibernians/?referrer=%2Fwomenschampionsleague%2Fseason%3D2017%2Fmatches%2Fround%3D2000808%2Fmatch%3D2020201%2F Yes Yes No No coverage to speak of here ✘ No
https://www.milliyet.com.tr/skorer/turkiye-4-yunanistan-2-1111216 Yes Yes No Passing mention in an U17 match report ✘ 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}}.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Likely to be back at AFD if sources aren't incorporated soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mridula Vijay[edit]

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

there is no reference that she played a significant role in listed productions joxinmcdaniel (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are sources not provided in the article, that verifies the actress has significant role in multiple malayalam serials and some minor roles in movies. The subject has also recieved enough coverage from well reputed multiple sources including Times of India. Kichu🐘 Discuss 13:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has played significent roles in notable malayalam serials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRICKETMANIAC303 (talk • contribs) 2021-02-06T09:47:01 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails GNG and WP:ACTOR; Keep advocacy is WP:SOURCESEXIST — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2.https://english.mathrubhumi.com/movies-music/movie-news/tv-stars-mridula-vijay-yuva-krishna-to-enter-wedlock-movie-1.5299849 3.https://malayalam.indianexpress.com/television/mridula-vijay-yuva-krishna-star-magic-video-451944/

These are only some sources I would like to attach here to establish the subject's notability. Its clear from the sources that the subject is a major actress in malayalam serial industry and has also appeared in some tamil movies. Source no 3 specificaly mentions that The actress is famous for appearing in several number of TV serials and shows. She is also a notable model and dancer as per the sources .Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 13:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 08:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is not enough in-depth reliable sources to prove her notability. Alibilbao (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ED-209[edit]

ED-209 (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 enough in-depth coverage regarding real world notability to pass gng. Onel5969 TT me 16:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A quick google of "ED-209" returns 667 million results. I have added a substantial and well sourced development section to the article as is, and it can be improved, though I am not taking personal responsibility for that. The figure is clearly notable, and a lack of immediate sources is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for adding an "improve article" tag. When every single nobody character in The Office, like whoever this guy is has an article, to focus and/or claim that ED-209 is unnotable is ridiculous. Even if you haven't seen RoboCop, you will have seen it referenced somewhere. Subject is unquestionably notable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and that Pete Miller article hasn't been tested at AFD (I would argue it fails; strip out the plot summary stuff and you're left with a paper thin reception section that may barely meet GNG). --Masem (t) 17:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless, ED-209 is known in popular culture, and yet onel5969 has tagged this article for deletion a day after I added a big chunk of info to it and just sourcing those cultural references alone would evidence notability and impact. No time has been given to improve the article, and this is not an acceptable avenue to pursue when there are genuinely unnotable articles all over the place on here that I have tried to delete in the past to no avail, including The Office characters. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to RoboCop (which I think already includes most of the sources, salient development information). Rest is mostly trivia and without any "reception" section, fails the typical requirements for a standalone character article. --Masem (t) 17:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not present in the franchise article, and it's not the right article to be talking about the in-depth development or cultural reception of a secondary character. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Fails GNG/NFICTION for a stand-alone. The development section can be merged per Masem. The only other section that may have some usefulness (not being WP:FANCRUFT) is 'Cultural impact' and it has no references. I am mildly surprised we have no List of RoboCop characters to redirect this to, however. The odds are such a list would be fine per WP:NLIST, and then this could be just softdeleted by redirecting it there. Right now, however, I guess the only valid target for preserving this as a redirect would be the movie it appeared in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Really lazy WP:SURMOUNTABLE deletion rationale by Onel that can be easily refuted with WP:RS. ED-209 has a section in The American Body in Context: An Anthology (2001), The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film and Television (2008), and surprisingly, Gender and Democratic Sentiment: United States Political Culture in the Early Republican Period (1993). It has countless news article mentions such as this one. It's clear that no WP:BEFORE was ever performed. Individually notable and one of the best-known film robots.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the amount of the parodies this character alone has received in popular media, indicating a lot of his notability isn't inherited from the film's. That plus the reception and the making of his design for the first RoboCop film makes this a worthy stand-a-lone article. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 08:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes[edit]

2018 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes (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 meet WP:EVENT criteria, exclusively based on Azerbaijani sources and official's statements, with no WP:RS. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not sure how you came to the idea that it's "exclusively based on Azerbaijani sources" when half of the sources are third-party WP:RS or Armenian sources. The event has been covered by several third-party, reliable sources such Eurasianet ([12]), OC Media ([13]) and bne IntelliNews ([14]). Event is clearly significant and notable for the region (as proven by previous sources), and the 2 involved countries (as can be seen from the large number of Armenian and Azerbaijani sources writing about this). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is based primary on Azerbaijani Defense Ministery's statements with 10 unreliable sources from Azerbaijani media. There are lots of Armenian sources unrelated to the clashes/operation. This, possibly, was added per editors' WP:OR. The sources from Eurasianet, Intellinews rely on Azerbaijani official statements. This event has to be confirmed by reliable independent sources, also there is notability issues. Otherwise this is WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:EVENT. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:JDLI. Biggest clashes in the Armenian–Azerbaijani border since 2016, the biggest clashes in the Armenian–Nakchivan border since '94. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even CivilNet says it was larger than what NKR lost in 2016, and confirms the death of an Armenian serviceman in the border with Nakhchivan. Also, an Armenian official confirms it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per which reliable source this is Biggest clashes in the Armenian–Azerbaijani border since 2016, and who says this were clashes? This is what I was talking about: WP:OR. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CivilNet. Provide sources to say otherwise. Which other "interclashes" conflict attracted the attention of Eurasianet, OC Media, or Jerusalem Post? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CivilNet is not a neutral source. This is what Eurasianet says, based also on Azerbaijani officials' statements:

"The advance seems to have taken place without any fighting, and the Azerbaijani forces remain on their side of the internationally recognized border. But they have reportedly taken up new positions in a previously unoccupied neutral zone in Azerbaijan's exclave of Nakhchivan near the Armenian village of Areni."

The article also mentions the number of killed military personnel, I am wondering, per which source? The whole article is either Azerbaijani statements or WP:OR. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CivilNet is a major Armenian source. Maybe not neutral when it comes to the Karabakh conflict, but biased in favour Armenia, and won't do Azerbaijan's propaganda. For the record, this version of the article mentions the fact that the casualties are not confirmed by third-parties and are solely based on the parties' statements. If this is the problem, such thing can be reverted. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think rewriting the article may help. It doesn't meet WP:EVENT. Armenian sources reported death of a soldier, there is no information that it was related to this "clashes". Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is titled "clashes" but no clashes are described. (Azerbaijani positions in the Sharur District of Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic became exposed to artillery fire of the Armenian Armed Forces. - not a "clash") Azerbaijani incursion into no-man's-land where a village was taken, and a sporadic border incident don't look like they form a coherent event. I think this is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I'm thoroughly unconvinced that anything that could be described as a "clash" took place in connection to the (attempted) subject of this article. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch Emis, this not being clash is reported by the Armenian side. The Azerbaijani side clearly states that there were clashes, even one Azerbaijani dead. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 08:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Communities Without Boundaries International[edit]

Communities Without Boundaries International (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 organisation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article can be prunned to make it usable. Vikram Vincent 07:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleaned up the article and made into stub. Notability can be discussed though I dont have a strong opinion on that. Vikram Vincent 08:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 08:18, 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 redirect to Tally Solutions. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tally.ERP 9[edit]

Tally.ERP 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just like the TallyPrime article, this is just prime spam. The article is WP:REFBOMBed with PR announcements and not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 27 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 14:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article and Bharat Goenka, and possibly some others are a part of an obviously paid effort to establish the presence of the connected commercial entity in multiple articles — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like it's either redirect or delete. Relisting one more time to see which one should be the result.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 08:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:05, 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 , rather weakly, but a consensus does exist. No prejudice towards recreation (including any other administrator undeleting this article and draftifying) if the state of play changes. Daniel (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi[edit]

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

None of the published work by the subject does not seems to have significant impact on the field of study. The subject has won some non notable awards. But he does not have recieved independent coverage from multiple sources to establish notability hence fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While he's a bit above average in a few criteria in his field*, there's nothing demonstrating an exceptional career or scholarly impact.
*criteria

I compiled the average total citations, total pubs, h-index, highest citation, and highest first-author citation for Chaturvedi and ~100 of his coauthors (with more than 30 papers--people publish in this field a lot).
Total cites: avg: 2669, Chaturvedi: 2366.
Total pubs: avg: 94, C: 264.
h-index: avg: 18, C: 24.
Highest cite: avg: 351, C: 113.
Highest first-author cite: avg: 95, C: 87.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Passing WP:GNG isn't a requirement, as WP:NPROF may be the relavent criteria here. As per JoelleJay's analysis, I'm not convinced is suitably notable though. Might be some reviews of the recent books in due course, but perhaps too soon for that to be grounds for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:JoelleJay, Inorder to pass WP:NPROF, the subject must satisfy atleast any of the 8 criterias mentioned there. I dont see he has passed any of that. His contribution doesnot seem to have made an impact in the field of study. Also he is not a winner of any notable awards. Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 17:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kichu, yep, I should have clarified that the criteria I was assessing were for NPROF C1, which seemed to be the NPROF criterion he was most likely to pass (but I don't think he does). JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 07:30, 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. North America1000 09:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FXdirekt Bank[edit]

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

See article's talk page. Not meeting notability guideline CORP or any other guideline. Also, no sources. Dirge Jesse (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 07:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A long-term article originally created and developed by WP:SPA accounts at a time before the current corporate notability standards. Such coverage as exists pertains to its closure, but a business being obliged to close by a regulator does not confer notability on the company itself. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not able to locate any references that meet the requirements for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 22:17, 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. Of the two keep votes, one doesn't discuss any relevant guidelines. The other provides a couple of sources, one of which is an interview with a local radio station. I'm not seeing sufficient indication of GNG here. Fenix down (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Cann (referee)[edit]

Darren Cann (referee) (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 with no reason given. My prod rationale was "fails WP:NFOOTY; also borderline WP:TNT". I see no mention of referee notability at WP:NFOOTY. Launchballer 21:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability, and article written to promote only. GiantSnowman 21:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the Guardian piece contains some good coverage but most of the other sources focus on Howard Webb instead. I found a mention in a West Brom book and in Arsene Wenger - Pure Genius but it isn't enough. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I see enough to pass GNG in my opinion, I liked the little bit on that he couldn't be a ref because of his affliction to Palace. [17], Talking on BBC Sports podcast [18], there is other news from more tabloid sources. I feel it does it add up, to say he has no evidence of notability is hogwash. Govvy (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NFOOTY only mentions players and managers, and the omission of referees seems strange to me. He (assistant) refereed a World Cup Final, the pinnacle of the game, and far more notable than someone with 2 minutes as a substitute in the lowest of professional leagues. Amend WP:NFOOTY; other referees are considered notable, why not this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.180.73 (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other referees are only considered notable if they pass WP:GNG and have significant coverage. For what it's worth, I would strongly oppose any attempt to include referees in NFOOTBALL. Referees simply do not get as much direct coverage as the players or the managers and I would strongly oppose giving them any presumed notability just because they officiated one game between two fully professional sides. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete referees need to pass GNG to be notable, Cann does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Delete Although I agree that someone who has officiated at both Champions League and World Cup final should be notable, the references do not meet Wiki rules. Agree that there could be some kind of ruling on footie referees (ie major finals) could be included in nfootball. However not enough sigcov (just the guardian article), and a lot of the refs just mention his name. Can't even argue WP:Basic #2.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Lovely[edit]

Eddie Lovely (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 player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. — Amkgp 💬 05:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 05:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 05:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep He reached last 16 of the World Masters which is an notable feat, however other than stat sites can't find any coverage as in the 90s. There must be some, as it was covered by the BBC but darts press were paper back then.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievements – one L16 appearance is not enough – does not inspire confidence that any can be found. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No WP:SIGCOV rousing fail of WP:SPORTSPERSON--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 16:39, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaz Cousins[edit]

Gaz Cousins (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 player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. — Amkgp 💬 05:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 05:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 05:18, 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. North America1000 05:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Creek, California[edit]

Patrick Creek, 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)

Now the Patrick Creek Lodge, but earlier topos label it either "Patrick Creek Guard Sta" or even "Patrick Creek Tavern". GHits tend to be for the creek itself or the campground across the road from the lodge. No indication that this was ever a town, and while I found one discussion of the lodge itself, I wouldn't call it enough to make it notable. Mangoe (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence it was a populated place. Also, no evidence that the lodge is notable. Paul H. (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to have been a stage coach station and consequently had a post office. The lodge opened in 1926. Neither appear notable.----Pontificalibus 08:36, 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. Nominator withdrew and no other !votes except keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Cross[edit]

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

Can't find any WP:RS on this band Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator: additional sources found; withdrawing as no other commenters have appeared to endorse deletion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't realize that this article had already gone through AfD before I submitted it via Twinkle. Not sure what to do, I guess I'll just let the process proceed, which will probably end in 'keep' since I don't have any additional reasons for deletion beyond what the first AfD had. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolf h nelson: The previous AfD was back in 2006 so cannot be considered relevant to this discussion. I see from your other comment you may now be doubting whether to keep the AfD running or not, at you have opted to find and assign some sources yourself? I was pondering a relist, but I sense you may also be considering withdrawing the nomination? Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bungle: Yes, good idea. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a couple of sources (AllMusic bio and a Stylus album review), though I doubt it'd be enough to establish notability CiphriusKane (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Stylus review is a good find, I hadn't found it when I did my pre-AfD search. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few more bits, like an AllMusic review, a PunkNews review, and this PunkNews article. The PN review looks user-submitted though (attributed to sk8punx4evr, which looks like a user handle) and the PN article looks like a rehashed press release, even if it was written by the site's founder CiphriusKane (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as they have an AllMusic staff written bio and two staff written album reviews as well as Punk News and others linked on the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:25, 25 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 11:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aerowings[edit]

Aerowings (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 airline. Only in operation for a couple months, nothing to suggest notability. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails WP:NCORP. Has had citation and notability tags for over 10 years. As per nom, in operation for just a few months on a single airliner hence notability not established. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- per nom. Too soon, if ever. Mazurkevin (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for UPE. MER-C 11:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable. Doesn't even have a ICAO or a IATA designator. ThatIPEditor (talk) 05:52, 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Five[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are associated or primary or routine coverage in the lone souther gospel magazine out there. The awards and nominations are not well recognized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This group won a GMA Dove Award last October for Southern Gospel Album of the Year, according to The Tennessean. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I addressed that in my nomination. It's not a prestigious award. If they had won the Grammy for Southern Gospel Album of the Year, that might have been different, but it would be like an audio engineer winning for best editing. Minor awards like this do not usually garner much press and that is the case here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a very prestigious award in Gospel and Christian music across multiple genres. As well as coverage in Christian sources, these awards are covered by WKRN-TV, Billboard and The Tennessean. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here is an article with significant coverage of Legacy Five in the Valdosta Daily Times. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) The Dove Award for best artist, best album, best new artist, best rock album, best rock performance are prestigious. Most of the rest are also-rans. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Legacy Five got the award for best album in 2020. Prestigious, in your words. LucasBitencourt (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • In descending order of prestige: Pop/Contemporary Album went to Tauren Wells. Worship Album OTY went to Hillsong Worship. Rock/Contemporary Album OTY went to Skillet (band), Rap/Hip Hop Album OTY went to Social Club Misfits. There are a number of other minor awards and Legacy Five received the minor award of Southern Gospel Album OTY. I have been involved in Christian music since 1977. At that time, Southern Gospel was a bit more prominent than it is today. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Who came up with that "descending order of prestige"? If it was not the Dove Awards organization themselves, it's clearly not really something. You may see it that way, but one view alone does not immediately mean something is true. A group's relevance should not be seen by the prestige of their award, anyways. It is a Dove Award for best southern gospel album, period. That does say a lot. LucasBitencourt (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't understand the logic behind that "descending order of prestige". If we were talking about, say, the Grammy Awards, we might say that "Album of the Year" is more prestigious than "Best Rock Album", "Best R&B Album", or "Best Country Album", since albums in all genres are eligible to compete for Album of the Year. But I doubt we would try to rank the prestige of Best Rock Album, Best R&B Album, and Best Country Album relative to each other; they're presumably all about equally prestigious relative to each other. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • One thing further, just because their album earned them a Dove, does not mean that they are immediately notable. MUSICBIO states that they may be notable if, and then lists reasons that may contribute to it. If we can't find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that is not routine, we have to assume that they are currently not notable and delete the article. I could not find sources to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • They are not "immediately" notable. They have been so since their formation, in 2000. Again, mere relevance is not up to us to decide. The southern gospel field has had Legacy Five at very high standards for the past 20 years. LucasBitencourt (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Legacy Five joins Georgians concert" seems like they are promoting a local concert so it's WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sorry. I should have linked that part of the guideline in my nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is no matter for deletion. I apologize, but claiming the GMA Dove Awards are not "well recognized" shows lack of knowledge on the topic. Not knowing it does not mean it's not important. It's obviously not a Grammy, yet it's widely known as one of (if not the) most respected awards in all of Gospel Music. It's specific for that genre. Remember: this article was written over 10 years ago, by fans and for fans. It was never meant to please the ego of the members of the group, who may not even know the article exists. This is meant to help those who want further information on the group. Rather than having to look all over the internet, they will find here all they need, through the work of several editors who have dedicated their time and effort to improve the article down the years. LucasBitencourt (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, I should have stated that the award they received was minor, not that the Dove Awards themselves are insignificant. As for looking all over the Internet, if we can't find significant coverage on the Internet or elsewhere, it's not our job to create such here. AllMusic does not even recognize their importance: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/legacy-five-mn0000232193 and that's their purpose for existing. None of their albums are reviewed there. None have ratings alone, and only one has a user rating. That clearly means something. If people want to find out about Gospel Music, I suspect that they will be going to https://www.singingnews.com or https://www.sgnscoops.com/. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not up to us, two people arguing on Wikipedia, to decide whether an award is relevant. When you talk about music, including all genres, all singers, all albums, all awards etc, it's obvious a southern gospel quartet will seem irrelevant. We must talk about their specific field. It's gospel music alone we're talking about. In that field, Legacy Five has proved their relevance time after time. Gospel magazines and websites feature them all the time. This cannot come down to one person's opinion on relevance. There's an entire field that must be taken into consideration. The website you mentioned, AllMusic.com, does not provide much info on several gospel groups, by the way. I've checked many. Even the Gaither Vocal Band, perhaps the best-known gospel group ever, does not have much said about them in there. Does that mean they are not relevant?! Of course not. It's a matter of adding the info in there. I may do it myself later. LucasBitencourt (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I suppose this might come down to how one views the Dove Awards, but in the absence of insider knowledge I think that award speaks a lot more strongly to notability in this area than Walter does. I'm not particular swayed by the argument that "Southern Gospel was a bit more prominent [in decades past] than it is today", as the Doves are still the premiere award for the genre. Combine this with the other coverage, and I think this group passes MUSICBIO. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Dove Awards are notable, for its more notable awards, but this minor Dove is not. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing all of the coverage that the award garnered. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The award garnered coverage from gospel media, which you don't seem to consider relevant. Again, that's the whole point: relevance cannot come down to one person's opinion. It is relevant for those who consume this kind of content. LucasBitencourt (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Appears an edit war and extended discussion on the article's Talk page led to this AfD nomination. Just an observation when a decision is being made here. David notMD (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, thank you. Until the moment I decided to question my fellow editor's choices for the article, it did not seem irrelevant at all. This deletion is looking like a more personal than reasonable decision. Please, take that into consideration. LucasBitencourt (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's try not to cast aspersions on the motivations of our fellow editors. While I would disagree with the nomination for deletion, Walter has made a lot of good points and if the article is kept, it will have to be severely pruned because music blogs and Facebook pages are not considered reliable sources. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologize for that. The heat of the moment, you know. I will not delete my comment for the sake of the discussion, but I do take back what I said. As for the Facebook and blog posts, I've added them mainly because they were posted by either the administration of the group (as in official statements on Facebook saying a member has left the group, for example) or by writers well-known in the field. They can be easily replaced by more reliable sources. I commit myself to doing that later. LucasBitencourt (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From Wikipedia's article on how to save an article from deletion: "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." Just last night, I've added several citations that prove the group's relevance. They are reliable, and very well-known on the gospel field. Again, relevance is not up to one person, but to one entire community. The Southern Gospel field recognizes the importance of Legacy Five. One may check every single source I've added to the article. Some of them may not seem very professional, but most are definitely reliable and well known in the Southern Gospel Music industry. LucasBitencourt (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems like a case of overzealous deletion. Wikipedia advises against it. Remember the principle of assuming good faith: the article was written over 10 years ago, not by a member of the group, but by fans, and for fans. It is not simply promoting the group. It is a place where people can find reliable information about the kind of music they enjoy. As I said, the group's notability is not questionable. They are relevant in their field. If a person does not know that field, or does not consider it relevant, that does not necessarily mean they are right. Please, take the entire Southern Gospel community into consideration. LucasBitencourt (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If lack of sources or redundancy of components on the page is the actual problem, we can solve it. I will personally do my best to improve the article as much as I can. This is precisely what I have been doing for at least the past five years. Take a look at the page's history. I have done nothing but improve the article, and I intend to keep doing so. Let's solve the problems by talking and trying to reach common ground. This is definitely not a case for delection. LucasBitencourt (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Check the article's analysis on Pageviews. The article itself has excellent daily averages and pageviews for a Southern Gospel quartet. As I've said before, they are best-knwon in their field. That alone has brought a lot of attention to the Wikipedia article. Again: not up to opinion. It's numbers, it's facts. Please, take that into consideration, too. LucasBitencourt (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've deleted all references from Facebook posts, and added citations from more reliable sources, as suggested by @User:Alyo. I had used Facebook posts because that is where Legacy Five's administration posts their official statements when a member leaves or joins the group, or when they release a new album, for example. Those references are no longer mentioned in the article. I hope that shows the article is based on quality references and that, rather than simply deleting it, we can work on it. LucasBitencourt (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unlike the nomination states, there seem to be multiple southern gospel magazines, also, several unassociated newspapers, such as https://www.carolinagatewayonline.com/content/life-constant-tweak-legacy-five and https://www.codyenterprise.com/news/people/article_c35c1db2-a784-11e2-b609-001a4bcf887a.html. They're a music group, we can't expect them to make the front page of the Washington Post, but non-trivial coverage in multiple "trade" papers and local newspapers meet WP:GNG. General request to User:LucasBitencourt, though - please relax, and don't post so much! This isn't in danger! Have a nice cup of tea! (Or, I guess, given the context, I guess you'd prefer a nice tall glass of cold sweet tea?) The Keeps here are overwhelming, but I couldn't initially even see that among all your Comments. --GRuban (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the vote and the tip, @GRuban. This is the first time I'm part of a deletion process, so I may be overreacting a little :) A hot cup of tea would be nice, nonetheless! LucasBitencourt (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 13:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Mohan[edit]

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

Extremely narrow coverage mostly by tabloids. I'm not sure if the meets the nobility criteria. Seems like WP:TOOSOON. RationalPuff (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's worth noting this article was created less than two hours ago and is still very much under development. However, the coverage in CNET, Space.com, and The Sunday Guardian seems sufficient to justify keeping the stub. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Refs are from NASA, India Times, CNET, The Sunday Guardian, and Space.com, none of which are tabloids. WP:SIGCOV meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Schazjmd (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ditto from above - India Times, CNET, and Space.com, are not tabloids. As for WP:ANYBIO, being an Ops Lead and public figure for a flagship NASA Mars mission surely counts as a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." Lamacha9617 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient references and more becoming available. John Cummings (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More content would be added as time goes by. She is a notable engineer responsible for the first successful Mars Rover Perseverance- a historical event.--செல்வா (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the GNG with the sources provided. --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable for their role in the recent mission. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is absolutely an article worth keeping, and is actively being expanded on Yitz (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject clearly meets both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. She has received specific and significant coverage in several reliable sources including CNET, The Hindu Times, News18, WBIR (10News), The Times of India, Gulf News and many others. None of these sources are tabloids. Mw learner (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as others have said - I've nothing else to add. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bad timing? An AfD of an article of a major person on the Mars 2020 team might have been thought out just a little bit more. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Turner (darts player)[edit]

Martyn Turner (darts player) (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 dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 00:04, 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) 18:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Littleton[edit]

Tony Littleton (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 dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom — Amkgp 💬 05:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Played at BDO World Championship finals, was Darts News player of the month in No 2017, and reached the full competition in the PDC German Masters and European Darts open.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievements – one appearance at Lakeside, even getting to the L16, is not enough – does not inspire confidence that any can be found. Darts News POTM is not a significant award, given on this occasion on the basis of one leg of darts. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero professional wins. Yet another dart player who's never worked and won. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amarda Arkaxhiu[edit]

Amarda Arkaxhiu (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 singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 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) 11:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donika Nuhiu[edit]

Donika Nuhiu (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 singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. (Notability tag since February 2019) Lorik17 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 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 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. North America1000 08:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evi Reçi[edit]

Evi Reçi (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 singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 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 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. North America1000 12:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irini Qirjako[edit]

Irini Qirjako (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 singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 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 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. North America1000 07:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zef Çoba[edit]

Zef Çoba (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 composer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues (tagged since 2011), lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 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 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. North America1000 08:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rexhep Hasimi[edit]

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

Composer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 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. North America1000 07:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artan Tushi[edit]

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

Composer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not seeing evidence of sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing any way that Tushi can pass GNG, unfortunately; searches aren't returning any useful coverage Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:19, 26 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gjon Simoni[edit]

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

Composer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has an entry in Grove. Several results in Google Books which look well more than trivial. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Google books shows multiple coverage in reliable sources such as Grove and other high quality works, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esat Rizvanolli[edit]

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

Composer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 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 redirect to The Children's Channel#Tiny TCC/Living. And protect. Content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 11:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Living[edit]

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

Whilst I have contributed to this page before, really, Tiny Living can barely, if at all, count as notable.

A long-defunct pre-school programming block, there is almost nothing about this that can be found anymore, except YouTube views and maybe some fanmade/user-generated webistes describing the block in a likely inaccurate manner and bias manner. At least, that is all a search gave me.

At the end of the day, this is just a poorly written stub that has been unsourced for fourteen years, is very unlikely to be expanded, and very likely fails WP:GNG. Maybe the article could be redirected to Sky Witness or The Children's Channel? Foxnpichu (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comment: I have not alerted the article creator since said account has not made a single edit since 2007, meaning the user is extremely unlikely to respond. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Children's Channel#Tiny TCC/Living whatever is not already in the target article, which shouldn't be much. Cordially, History DMZ (HQ) † (wire) 03:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Children's Channel#Tiny TCC/Living, then protect this as a redirect as this and TCC have been longtime 'fantasy TV vandal' targets and underwent multiple protection periods. Nate • (chatter) 04:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only problem with a Merge is that the Tiny Living article is completely unsourced and has rarely any information to begin with. But yeah, I definitely agree that these articles have had a lot of vandalism and unsourced additions. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:38, 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.
  1. ^ "Salesforce On The Breach: Consumers Fight Back After Their Data Was Sold On The Dark Web". Epiq Angle. Retrieved 22 February 2021.
  2. ^ McLane Company (4 January 2021). "Top 202 Convenience Stores 2020". CSP Daily News. Winsight Media. Retrieved 21 February 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_February_19&oldid=1041535993"