Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 23	February 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kjetil Lundebakken[edit]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to two very short substitute appearances in an allegedly 'fully professional league' 12 years ago. The rest of his football career was at a much lower level and there is no evidence of any WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG was failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources doesn't meet WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not find any significant coverage of Lundebakken, meaning that a WP:GNG fail is likely Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 12:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:19, 3 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Lien[edit]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to one start and three very short substitute appearances in an allegedly 'fully professional league' about 20 years ago. The rest of his football career played out at a much lower level and there is no evidence of any WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG was failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not find any significant coverage on this particular Lars Lien addressing him in depth, fails WP:GNG and only trivially passes WP:NFOOTBALL Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:20, 3 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Lenes[edit]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to a single appearance (for a part-time club) in an allegedly 'fully professional league' two years ago. The rest of his football career has been at a lower level and there is no evidence of any WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG was failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY subject is 24 years and is actively playing in Norwegian First Division including this season .Now if the player has retired or is injured it is different but he is actively playing and is young and has a long career before him.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG and still playing.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for GNG pass please. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:20, 3 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metsuo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. No reliable sources to be found, links in article are all dead. Rogermx (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found only a Discogs entry which I suppose is based upon Wikipedia article. No other sources found. Less Unless (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG, Google search did not turn up anything to establish notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 09:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above, Fails WP:NBAND. Hulatam (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found other sources, but they are the usual youtube, lastfm, twitter, the article itself, download links and WP mirrors. None of those establish any notability. Tagged for multiple issues, which is never a good sign either. Just because their songs have appeared in Max Payne, (the English article does not contain this information, but the Hungarian one does and I have also found evidence of this during the search - on youtube and on the download site) that does not mean anything imo if the sourcing is dreadful and there is no other evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, can't find anything that suggests notability Devoke water 12:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Unless a band has won a major award (such as a Grammy, Juno, etc.), WP:NMUSIC requires specific types of coverage in reliable sources of touring, record sales, etc., which is lacking here. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 3 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. Sandstein 11:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Riverside, California mayoral election[edit]

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

Deprodded without comment or improvement. There does not appear to be anything significant about this particular election. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that a small-city election, with non-notable candidates and routine press coverage, is notable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG nothing to suggest this could be notable. onel5969 might want to look at Talk:2020 Riverside, California mayoral election which seems to have list of similar non-notable pages. Jeepday (talk) 18:16, 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. Sandstein 11:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Rewind Indonesia[edit]

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

Youtube channel that lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle:
Indonesian: karena saya tidak mengerti tempat buat komentar disini karena wikiteks disekitar sini banyak betul. Jadi di bagian ini aja. (kalau bisa pindahin biar gak salahtempat) Hhmm… saya juga nggak ngerti amat sama peraturan di Wikipedia. Saya Pengguna baru 1 tahun (jika dihitung di tahun 2020) dan juga saya lebih suka sunting di Wikipedia Indo sih, daripada Bahasa Lain :v tapi saya juga ngedit buat artiin artikel dari Wikipedia Inggris terus di artikan ke Wikipedia Indonesia. Saya juga masih belum begitu paham sekali dengan Wikipedia. Jadi jika kalau melanggar peraturan di Wikipedia Inggris, hhhmmm hapus lah. Karena saya juga cuman pen nambahin artikel aja, yang kedua jangan dialihkan YouTube Rewind Indonesia ke yang biasa, karena itu asalnya dari Indo bukan Resmi dari Google ataupun YouTube
Fahri ^bicara📬 13:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
English: Because I don't know where to comment. Because of the many wikiteks. So in this section only. (If it can be moved, so it's not the wrong place) Hhmm ... I also don't understand the rules on Wikipedia. I am also a new user for 1 year (if counting in 2020) and I also prefer to edit on Indonesian Wikipedia, rather than Other Languages :V but I also edit to translate articles from the English Wikipedia to continue to be translated into the Indonesian Wikipedia. I don't really understand Wikipedia either. So if you break the rules on the English Wikipedia, just delete it. Because I also only want to add articles, secondly, don't Redirect YouTube Rewind Indonesia as usual, because originally Indonesia is not official from Google or YouTube.
Fahri ^talk📬 13:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the sources are primary and the rest of the sources don’t show notability (no WP:SIGCOV). D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:23, 3 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Westfall[edit]

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

No single source cited. Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 20:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be a notable Korean-American textile artist with the same name. Please don't confuse them when searching for sources. pburka (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASIC, I have not been able to find significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Beccaynr (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG (no sources, which is a problem since this is a BLP). D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. This is completely unsourced, and to be certain, I looked, and there are zero newspaper articles on Google about this person; also, she appears to have thirty-six (36) followers on Twitter. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) P.S. Dicta: The artist (not this person) might be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 22:36, 3 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. — The Earwig (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Affliction Networks[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 20:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zero WP:VG/RS hits; article currently only uses primary sources; most likely advertising. IceWelder [✉] 20:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon, run of the mill, GNG fail. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails in passing WP:BASIC. Hulatam (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this company does not have multiple reliable sources addressing it directly and in detail, it therefore fails WP:NCORP Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please read the talk page before making your votes. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoggingOnto (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the sources and my stance is still 'delete'. Please read WP:SIRS very carefully. Not one of the sources shows significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. Also read WP:RS and see that PC Gaming Wiki, MMO13 and Bang Howdy Wiki are not reliable sources at all. Being listed on Steam is not a sign of notability as they will take games from any developer. Calling a company notable because they have a game listed on Steam would be like calling a musician notable because they have a video on YouTube.... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giosue Bellagambi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Has never played in a game between two clubs playing in a league listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Has never been the subject of detailed non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources, failing WP:GNG.

Source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.flashscore.com/player/bellagambi-giosue/l22IDHGG/			A basic profile page	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/giosue-bellagambi/591153/			Almost every player has a Soccerway page, it is not an indicator of notability	✘ No
https://futaa.com/ug/article/211825/england-born-ugandan-goalkeeper-giosue-bellagambi-signs-first-professional-contract-at-huddersfield-town			Routine announcement about signing a contract	✘ No
https://kawowo.com/2020/08/06/goalkeeper-giosue-bellagambi-signs-professional-contract-at-huddersfield-town/			Routine announcement about signing a contract, hardly any depth	✘ No
https://www.htafc.com/matches/fixtures/u18-team/201718/march/huddersfield-town-u18-vs-coventry-city-u18-on-10-mar-18/	He played for this club		Brief mentions in U18 match report on club's own website	✘ No
https://afootballreport.com/predictions/head-to-head/2018-03-09/england/u18-professional-development-league/huddersfield-town-u18/coventry-city-u18/mtm1mdgtmtm1mtu=/		?	No coverage to speak of	✘ No
https://www.htafc.com/academy/u19-team/goalkeeper/giosue-bellagambi/	He played for this club		Profile page on club's own site	✘ No
https://www.htafc.com/news/2021/february/loan-giosue-bellagambi-joins-ebbsfleet-united/			Routine announcement of going out on loan	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/giosue-bellagambi/591153/			Another database page	✘ No
https://www.playmakerstats.com/player.php?id=785070			Another database page	✘ No
https://www.football-addict.com/en/article/huddersfield-town-afc/loan-giosue-bellagambi-joins-ebbsfleet-united/6022dd1aaf7cf300098f5556		?	Routine announcement	✘ No
https://www.ebbsfleetunited.co.uk/fleet-take-terriers-stopper-on-loan/	He plays for Ebbsfleet		Just a brief announcement about his loan	✘ No
https://www.thenpl.co.uk/giosue-bellagambi-joins-rams-on-youth-loan-63908			Another loan announcement	✘ 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)} 19:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY with various reliable sources like Soccerway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanseera Tracey (talk • contribs) 13:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - has never played at a fully pro level and does not pass WP:GNG. Soccerway is a stats database and being included in it does not convey notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per agreement with source assessment above. There are reliable sources used, but coverage is trivial or incidental and not indicative of notability of the subject. Tier of play does not meet WP:NFOOTY requirements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source assessment. None of the sources contribute to GNG, and none of the sources have significant coverage of the player. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:26, 3 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katarzyna Kozaczyk[edit]

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

Nothing to support notability or encyclopaedic value. Even searches for Polish texts do not offer anything substantial. Subject fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quick search yields zero reliable coverage + article creator is blocked.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources doesn't meet WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devoke water 17:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no search results, creator is blocked, fails GNG. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:28, 3 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. Little participation, but the sole keep vote provides no real sources to illustrate claims of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarje Nordstrand Jacobsen[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "managing director in Molde FK is enough". I don't think it is, when WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG are failed so comprehensively. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scraps by GNG in my opinion, looks like he played enough football [1]. Govvy (talk) 11:42, 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaute Johannessen[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "not sure, but league winner should be OK". I don't think being a bit-part player in a team which wins a semi-pro league is inherently notable. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won the top flight league with Viking in 1991, I bet there are more offline sources. Played in the UEFA Cup Winners Cup. [2] Which to me should pass WP:NFOOTBALL. There are more sources there there [3], Now if I could read Norwegian which I can't. Govvy (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the best looking source was this in Rogalands Avis. He then gets a few mentions in a match report and this is a more recent article but doesn't look like it covers him in much depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:31, 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 no consensus. Note that Timberlack is a blocked sock. Sandstein 11:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Carvalho[edit]

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

References provided are non notable, majority of them are from Twitter and other primary sources. Two books he wrote are available on Google Books but no significant coverage in secondary sources found for them either. Almost every other reference is an article written by him for the organization he works for. Dial911 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Out of 22 sources, two are from Twitter, about minor details (also confirmed by other sources). Most sources are from major news outlets in Brazil, like Grupo Globo (one of the biggest media comglomerates in the world), Grupo RBS, Quem (magazine), Terra (company), and also some local newspapers. Article was created a few minutes ago, I doubt the editor who nominated for deletion even had the time to read it properly, let alone check the sources. Subject is relevant (journalist nominated for an International Emmy Award and published author) and article is properly sourced. — Mr White 17:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While creating articles for Wikipedia, please keep in mind that number of sources doesn't matter. The quality does. Reference number 1 doesn't confirm his DOB, reference 6, 7, and 11 are from Twitter, majority of the rest are from his news organization Globo itself. No significant, secondary, reliable and encyclopedia-worth content found for this journalist. Dial911 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is Globo not a reliable source? It is one of the biggest media companies in the world, recognized by many awards over the years. Also, most of the information on him is not from Globo. Globo is mostly used as a source to prove he did the coverage of the cave rescue in Thailand, the royal wedding, etc. All of his work that is notable are not sourced from Globo, but from other news organizations. The tweets are not used as sources for information on him, but on his wife, cousin, and dog. If the tweets can not be used as sources, that can be changed in the article, but why does {{cite tweet}} exists? How is this subject not encyclopedia-worth? A two times published author and journalist nominated for a Emmy for his documentary is not encyclopedia-worth? What criteria are you using? — Mr White 22:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reference-wise breakdown:

1 is a bogus reference that does not even confirm his DOB. (Rejected reference)

2 take us to g1.globo.com (the company he works for) where we see a video clip from a news channel stating his documentary is Emmy finalist. (Might be an okayish reference)

3 & 4 list his books. No coverage, no reviews, nothing. Just listing of his books. (not enough to have standalone article on him)

5 tells that he is the cousin of another journalist working at Globo. And it basically cites their tweets. (again, heavily relies on primary source)

6 & 7 Twitter (bogus)

8 is somewhat acceptable but certainly not enough

9 is interview (primary source)

10 is literally 2 lines that repeat same information as Reference 2.

11 twitter (bogus)

12 takes you to globoplay (same company) and is interview. (again, primary)

13 tells us that his dog takes part in an interview (is it encyclopedic?)

14 to 20 takes us to Globo website (company he works for) Dial911 (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1 Reference to his full name, although not his birthday, I must have seen that date somewhere else, but the date can be removed if there's no reference to it.

2 The number one news channel in the country is not an "okayish" source, but here is the official emmy website stating the same info.

3 and 4 His books are listed on other references (8, 9, 12). I used his books as references to his parents and wife name, and the release date and publisher of the books.

5 Independent source, from Portal Terra (not Globo).

6 backed by source number 5, 7 is backed by source number 9

8 Yes it is. What is the reason for ou not to consider it acceptable or enough as a source?

9 Interview from an independent source. Also the piece is not entirely an interview, some information used was written independently by the authors.

12 Interview in a big television program, in a major network, makes it clear the dog is notable by the public, information that is also backed by other independent source (number 13).

13 Source mentions the dog appeared on television besides him multible times, other independent sources say the same. Notlable enough to deserve a sentence.

14–20 Yes. His notable coverages (namely, the natural disasters in Angra dos Reis, 2010; the San Jose Mine accident in Chile, 2010; the French presidential elections, 2017; Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, 2018; the Tham Luang cave rescue in Thailand, 2018; and the canonization of Saint Dulce, 2019) are mentioned in sources 8, 9, 12, 13. Sources from GloboNews just corroborates that. — Mr White 23:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References explained as per Mr White. Timberlack (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's little discussion of the actual sources. Sandstein 11:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pilpeled[edit]

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

Non-notable Artist,fails to pass WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 17:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 17:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 17:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 17:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article, but there's not enough in-depth sourcing found to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pilpeled is a very known artist in Israel. the article is well sourced, and actually is like the Hebrew article פילפלד. Do pass both WP:GNG, and WP:NARTIST. Ovedc (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovedc:Sorry, I could not find any in-depth sources about him, Btw Other language wikis are not considered to prove his notability -- Padavalam🌂 ► 07:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Padavalamkuttanpilla:, Thank you for your remark, I added much more 3rd-party references from around the world, please read and re-consider your opinion, Thanks!

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is supported by reliable sources on Pilpeled and his work (e.g. [4], [5]) which are independent and whose coverage is non-trivial. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pilpeled is an artist with a proven record of international activity for years, including exhabitions in important museums and works for international brands, like Coca Cola and Puma. The article is written well in an encyclopedic style and it is based on a variety of sources. So it should be kept.Anatbc (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see decent coverage in a search. Meets GNG. It is not helping things that someone related to the artist appears to have been editing the page promotionally. Possibly (talk) 05:35, 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) 20:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Kristiansen[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "over 100 matches in top tier should be enough". This is incorrect (some of the matches were in the second tier) and in any case they happened well before the Norwegian men's football league was anything close to 'fully professional'. Accordingly they resulted in little evidence of WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep I disagree with this also, I see sources I can't read, match reports mostly, over 100 games played for one club seems enough of a footing for GNG in my opinion. There are inherent weaknesses with the article, I can see why this is nominated due to lack of online sources, however this is the weakness of wikipedia structure and policy allowing these nominations to happen with out a true WP:BEFORE for sources that can inherently be in a newspaper archive, in a book, etc. Govvy (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - he certainly does get some coverage but it's a bit WP:ROUTINE; see Grimstad, Nordlands Framtid and Fremover. I couldn't find anything better than that. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 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. Daniel (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salil Singhal[edit]

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

references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being rich, receiving awards and representing an organisation doesn't establish nobility. RationalPuff (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep has some major wp:rs economic times, business today. Article is written poorly needs rewriting.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The account was created shortly before adding this vote. RationalPuff (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment: @RationalPuff:, has some reliable sources like economic times, bloomberg,search over google would demonstrate more sources. It can be edited and improved. Per wp:atd if it can be edited it shouldn’t be deleted. this is not a SPA. ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The sources are woeful hence the delete. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diffeo (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page has only the primary term (a redirect to Diffeomorphism) plus one other link, to Diffeo (company). The only other possible link I can find is Diffeology, though that seems different enough to me that it is not really ambiguous. Cnilep (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I created this disambiguation page and concur that it should be deleted. Cnilep, perhaps this is sufficient to close this discussion and mark it for deletion? jrf (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Correction... I was thinking this should be a WP:G14, but I now think this should be *kept*. I've now read the article on diffeology, and found diffeomorphometry and more interestingly found the diffeomorphism anomaly page that redirects to the gravitational anomaly page, which is the context within which I first heard the truncation of diffeomorphism to just "diffeo." These are all quite different things, such that a person speaking in one of these contexts might naturally shorten to "diffeo" without fear of ambiguity in context. I think disambiguation pages are intended for exactly this purpose, so I reverse my opinion -- I think this should be kept. Also, I've updated this page to list these additional meanings. jrf (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the things that Jrf added are called diffeo (as opposed to having that as part of their name), then the page should indeed be kept. I don't know enough about mathematics or physics to determine whether that is the case. In any case, thank you, Jrf, for your additions and your comments here. Cnilep (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that jrf is a co-founder of Diffeo the company, according to his user page, and while I thank him for making it clear there, I think it would have been proper under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to disclose this explicitly when editing related pages and participating in deletion discussions. But anyway, I don't mean this as a personal attack or to take away from the discussion of the merits.) I agree with Cnilep that, unlike for "diffeomorphism", it's unclear whether sources actually refer to "diffeology" or any of the other items using the standalone term "diffeo". Are there sources to support that? Adumbrativus (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cnilep, thank you for pointing that out. I should have made that more clear in this discussion instead of expecting people to open my user page. I'd like to note that while there is an apparent CoI in my editing pages related to the word "diffeo" (and an apparent CoI is often indistinguishable to an actual CoI), my primary interest here is about language. I think disambiguation pages are one of the coolest parts of Wikipedia, because they address the experience of learning by removing ambiguity---hence my further comment below. jrf (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Googling suggests that "diffeo" is an occasionally-used abbreviation for "diffeomorphism" (as here, though not mentioned in the target article), but that probably the company is the primary topic and should be moved to the base title (the hatnote already there on the company page does what's needed). No need for a dab page either way. PamD 14:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noting the CoI discussion above, I'd like to suggest there is a pedagogical reason to consider having the title "Diffeo" point at the disambiguation page itself (bullet points below). I defer to more experienced Wikipedians on best approach. jrf (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The etymology of the word "diffeomorphism" is a combination of three roots: "differentiable" (sufficiently smooth, etc), "homeo" (opposite of hetero), and "morphism" (a transformation), so it means, essentially "a smooth transformation that brings a thing back to itself." With that grounding in hand, it's clear that it is exceedingly general. The concept is useful in extremely diverse technical settings, i.e. research communities whose members might never interact. (While there are examples of diffeomorphisms that are not homeomorphisms, that's a technicality.)
- It is very natural to clip diffeomorphism or diffeomorphic to just diffeo. From OED, an early, possibly the first use of the word diffeomorphic was also clipped to diffeo: 1953 W. Ambrose & I. M. Singer in Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 75 428 "We use the word ‘diffeo’ for a 1:1 differentiable mapping of one manifold onto another whose inverse is also differentiable and call the manifolds diffemorphic [sic]." Hilarious that they (accidentally) dropped the "o" in diffeomorphic in that sentence, but reinserted it later in that paper.
- Clipping to diffeo is especially useful when speaking. A lecturer talking about smooth transformations that bring a thing back to itself can side-step the tongue-twister of saying diffeomorphism over and over by replacing it with the word diffeo.
- This organically produces the need for disambiguation, because a discussion about gravity or sets or computational anatomy or dynamical systems might all use the word "diffeo" with large presumed context. When a novice joins such a conversation, and they encounter this unknown word "diffeo," we (as Wikipedians) hope that they can efficiently discover the full article about that specialized use of the word.
- Here are examples of online discussions and lecture presentations that truncate to "diffeo." Most of these also spell out the word diffeomorphism, so these are just indicative of what might occur in a verbal discussion: diffeo in lecture about sets, diffeo in discussion about computational anatomy, diffeo in lecture about gravity. Easy to find more by googling for ["diffeo" "gravity"] or ["diffeo" "anatomy"] etc jrf (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm satisfied that there are really only two topics, and the current arrangement of a primary redirect is fine. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:2DABS. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The hatnote on the company page will be enough to get readers to the right place (as long as it stays there). Ebony Jackson (talk) 04:43, 4 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Hjorth[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "managing director in Stabæk is enough, also over 100 matches meets GNG". Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as none of the over 100 matches were in a 'fully professional league'. The number of matches played is irrelevant to WP:GNG which is measured by sustained, non-routine coverage, of which there is little evidence. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep From the sources I see, he just about scrapes by GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage looks too weak for me to say that WP:GNG is met. This is more than a passing mention but the rest of the stuff I found was routine match report coverage and brief mentions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asbjørn Helgeland[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "managing director in Haugsund is enough" (?) Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, even allowing for some WP:DOGBITESMAN stuff in his local newspaper Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if he played in Allsvenskan then he would meet NFOOTBALL, but I cannot find any sources which verify that. Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giant: [6] --- Løken (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per source linked above which shows multiple appearances in Allsvenskan, meeting NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 6 appearances in Allsvenskan, comfortably passes NFOOTBALL Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that the Allsvenskan was "fully professional" at that time? Or is that one of the ones we tell lies about? (Sorry I can't keep up) Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the Allsvenskan was not fully professional at that time then please start a discussion at WT:FPL. You can't just say that footballers fail NFOOTBALL when current consensus is that that league was fully pro at that time. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:46, 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Gunnar Johnsen[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "over 50 matches in top tier, and winner of the league". Article still fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the top tier appearances took place well before the Norwegian men's football league was 'fully professional'. Also fails WP:GNG and is completely unsourced. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. I cannot find any sources showing he played in Eliteserien from 2001 (the cut-off for notability at FPL) - this has apps in 2000 and earlier only. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources below which demonstrate notability. Giant Snowman 20:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman: - I found some coverage that goes beyond routine mentions. This two page spread goes into a lot of depth about his family life. I also found this article reporting entirely on him and half a page of content here. Should be enough to meet WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spiderone.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:19, 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) 15:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compass Travel[edit]

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

Cannot find any significant coverage of this company outside local news - fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a non notable travel company, I see no reason why it should be kept. Dellwood546 (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mulltiple mentions in local and industry cites. Lilporchy (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage, not mentions are needed. Furthermore if there is not at least one SIGCOV source outside of local/specialist publications then it fails WP:AUD, a component of NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. fails WP:NCORP. Timberlack (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated the !vote as it has not yet been determined that Timberlack is, in fact, a sock of any other editor that has !voted here. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete - Only found ^[1] and ^[2] however the rest are either mere mentions or LOCAL. ~~Merge/Redirect to preserve the history.~~ –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Davey2010, merge to where? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi HighKing, Ah good question - Maybe I was going to check back later ?, Don't have a clue so struck all. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hey Davey2010, you might consider a "List of Bus Companies" type article which has a much different (and easier) criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi, I would love a list article with all non-notable companies on them but in the end we're gonna attract the deletionists who will wikilaywer to the very death and in the end it would've all been for nothing. –Davey2010^Talk 18:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Davey2010, List-type articles have entirely different guidelines. Check out WP:SALAT. Absolutely nothing to say that non-notable companies cannot be included in a list (see WP:LISTCOMPANY) although if it gets out of hand, you may wish to reflect what criteria is being used for inclusion. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Father concerned for daughter's safety on board '˜overcrowded' school bus". www.wscountytimes.co.uk. Retrieved 2021-02-20.
^ "Compass Travel on course for improvement with Freeway". www.transportengineer.org.uk. Retrieved 2021-02-20.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. --Devoke water 04:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - topic fails WP:NCORP; trivial coverage in local papers is never enough. I see no reason to make an exception here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Seaman[edit]

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

In a WP:BEFORE search, I was unable to find multiple sources addressing Seaman directly and with an appropriate level of depth. She is mentioned a lot in TWG but it's just in squad listings. I also found a match report and another match report, neither of which provide any depth either. Also, this Telegraph article only mentions her once too. Although she had a good number of appearances, these were often as a late substitute, which might explain why coverage is lacking. Aside from concerns around WP:GNG, she also does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTBALL as well as GNG. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:30, 3 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 Bruce Bannister. Daniel (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsshoes.com[edit]

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

Does not meet NCORP: Refs are only placements of promotional lists of "fastest growing" and the like, notices about close of individual store, and a promotional bio of the founder where he says whatever he pleases. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Turns up no independent sources in a search I did.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Bruce Bannister, the founder of Sportsshoes.com, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Bruce Bannister, which only has one short sentence about this company that he founded. Merging a bit of the content will improve that article (WP:ATD-M). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 3 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. Daniel (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Christie (film director)[edit]

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

This article have no news article. Doesn't meet any criteria. So I think this page should be deleted. DasSoumik (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need to stop having BLPs sourced only to an unreliable source and the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note, first of all, that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not necessarily the current state of the article — if enough sources are available out there to repair the problems with an article, then we keep it. I've found and added four sources, which isn't as much as I would have liked but is clearly enough to pass WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE is your friend. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 17 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)} 17:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep indeed, lacked of WP:BEFORE. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG per sources added by Bearcat. --Ashley yoursmile! 08:03, 4 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 John Adler. Daniel (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Adler[edit]

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

Wife of deceased congressman does not earn inherited notability. In her own right, serving on the Cherry Hill, New Jersey City Council and unsuccessfully running for Congress do not satisfy WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 05:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite a rather deceptive section header on the page, she did not serve in the New Jersey Senate, and nothing else in her biography takes her above the level of failed candidate. BD2412 T 06:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is an article-clinching notability claim: people do not get Wikipedia articles for running as candidates in elections they didn't win, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for serving on the municipal council in a township, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for happening to have been married to more notable people, adding those three things together still doesn't amount to a credible notability claim, and having a blip of campaign coverage does not make a candidate more special than other candidates since they all also have blips of campaign coverage. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/ Redirect to John Adler - She is not independently notable based on the sources provided. The article itself appears to have been created as a fork from the article for her husband John Adler and some of the concerns raised about "deceptive" and misleading headings are based on the copying from that original article. Her efforts to run for office to succeed her husband / fill his seat would fit properly into his article. as a candidate for Congress, and article that exists as a redirect would be beneficial to readers. Alansohn (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Alansohn Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 09:51, 19 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)} 17:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge don't need to delete, merging is better 007sak (talk) 10:30, 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subash Singh[edit]

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

Page does not have news article DasSoumik (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DasSoumik, notability is based on the existence of sources, not the current state of the article, did you have a look at WP:BEFORE ? Google News gave me several articles covering him playing as a professional footballer. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL, from what I can see. I can only seem to find sources about a different player with a similar name, Subash Singh. Giant Snowman 18:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable independent resources, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. DMySon 19:36, 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. Daniel (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Young (drummer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, couldn't find sufficient evidence that he's notable outside of the bands he's played in. Suonii180 (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO looks like he is not even a still a member of any of the blue link groups he played for. Straight delete or no objections to a redirect to Cinder Road the last blue link band he was in. Jeepday (talk) 18:26, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta (meme)[edit]

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

I am wondering if this meme should be deleted. The reason I think so is that it seems to fail the notability guidelines and has BLP1E issues, as I highly doubt that Shweta, and anonymous girl, is going to become a public figure from this event. It is also an embarassment for the subject, and therefore is subject to BLP concerns. It is similar to the Jessi Slaughter and Brian Peppers cases, which were deleted as well. According to the notability guideline in news, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Steve M (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Steve M (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: People are making fun of her over a leaked audio where she forgot to mute herself on video call while having a conversation with her colleagues. I believe everything should be on this platform but someone's embarrassment should not be shared using this platform. This article fails the notability guidelines as well. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I worked on this article as to actually clarify the readers regarding the subject as I also take blame from myself for not adhering to the BLP policy. I understand that the subject in consideration has been embarrassed in this regard and I agree to delete this article. I created this article since it became one of the internet memes within a short period of time. I also agree that the article only meets WP:1E and WP:BLP1E. Abishe (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Abishe, and TheDreamBoat. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is potentially libel WP:LIBEL. Wikipedia has no place for such things. Take this elsewhere. RationalPuff (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUSTAINED. This sort of meme will be entirely forgotten in a week. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 12:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely to be a transient phenomenon. If there is sustained notability, it might merit a page, but for now, this is nonsense. See WP:SUSTAINED. Ira Leviton (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUSTAINED Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:54, 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. Daniel (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TV9 Kannada[edit]

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

This page does not have news article. So I think this page should not be on wikipedia. DasSoumik (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DasSoumik, same here as before mentioned, please make a WP:BEFORE, saw several Google Book Citations of them. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found citations from Google Books, untranslated news articles, andGoogle Scholar. "I think" does not cut it for deletion. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per AmericanAir88. DMySon 19:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford thank you. I'll keep it in my mind.

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

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

The result was merge to List of controversial video games. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School Shooter: North American Tour 2012[edit]

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

This game is only notable for the controversy it created and not the gameplay itself; ie this is a WP:ONEEVENT situation. Sources only discuss its controversy and not the game itself, leaving little to actually write about. I don't see this as being notable in the slightest, or even as a redirect. Namcokid 47 17:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Namcokid 47 17:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Namcokid47, WP:ONEEVENT is about "People notable for only one event" (my emphasis), so it does not apply. And there's tons of media coverage on it, not just from the time of its release. Examples: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9. It even made its way into the US Supreme Court's opinion in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (link to opinion). --Usernameunique (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of controversial video games, the game was notable enough to receive coverage, but not enough to allow for a full article. Loafiewa (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Loafiewa, a reasonable-length section that includes the documented coverage of this mod is already there. We can add an anchor if necessary for that. --Masem (t) 04:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a good idea since the main topic is about controversial video games, and this has virtually no coverage outside of that topic. Archrogue (talk) 18:32, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar A. Moreno[edit]

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

All unreliable primary sources and fails the notability guideline. Noah!^💬 16:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing in the article to support a claim of notability and a Google search found no reliable and verifiable sources that would support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devoke water 17:39, 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) 14:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritmi i Rrugës[edit]

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

Article has multiple issues, lacks of references and fails the inclusion criteria for WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. The article was deleted in 2011 and later created again. Lorik17 (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination text had been appended to the old AfD discussion from 2011--I've moved it here and added it to the daily log page, which also had not been done. I have no opinion of my own at this time. @Iaof2017: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO and note that renominating an article which had been previously discussed at AfD requires creation of a new discussion page rather than appending to the old one. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can´t see the previous version that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritmi i Rrugës but my guess is this recreated article meets the G4 criteria for speedy deletion as there is no sources or information in the article postdating the AfD. In any case, it fails both WP:BAND andWP:GNG as there is no in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources about the group. The fact that one of its members is now a minister does not help, as notability is not automatically transferred to the band. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:03, 24 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 23:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jiyas Jamal[edit]

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

It's just a vanity article. Does not meet WP:GNG. PROD was removed by another editor without an adequate explanation. Likely sock/meatpuppetry involved. RationalPuff (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I PRODed him. An usual lawyer, no WP:GNG given. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is week and sources not found on internet so fails notability. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not in any way a notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the comments above Totalstgamer (talk) 15:08, 3 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horbury West Curve[edit]

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

No credible claim to fame - appears to be a loosely based duplication of Horbury and Ossett railway station. Google search suggests other than it exists it isn't particularly notable. Only source on page is to a blog site. Nightfury 15:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 15:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 15:53, 24 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. Of note is that the article was expanded after being nominated for deletion, and presently cites eight sources (diff). Per no discussion from other users herein, closing with No prejudice against speedy renomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niyitegeka Gratien[edit]

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

Non notable poet, comedian and filmmaker who fails to satisfy WP:POET, WP:ENT & WP:FILMMAKER. Although the article is unsourced at the moment a before search shows subject lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:45, 24 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) 21:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Djunaedi[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the fully professional league in Indonesia just began in 2008. Tensa Februari (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Tensa Februari (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - interestingly, he has a stadium named after him, see Kamal Djunaedi Stadium. He is described as 'the legend of Persijap' here, which certainly implies that he must have some significance. I can't actually find any significant coverage, though, and I agree that WP:NFOOTBALL looks to be failed (I can't find anything to suggest that he played for Indonesia). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spiderone:, according to this article here: Stadion Kamal Djunaedi [id] (but unsourced, so I can not verified that fact), he died while playing with Persijap in a regional amateur competition because of lightning strike. --Tensa Februari (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reluctantly. Unfortunately, there just doesn't appear to be enough out there about this footballer to support this article. I can't even find a source about his alleged death. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 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 redirect to Buffalo Public Schools. — The Earwig (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Badillo Bilingual Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buffalo Public Schools. Elementary schools are rarely notable, and there is no coverage sufficient to convince me that this one is an exception. Redirection to the district's article should be sufficient for the reader. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buffalo Public Schools. I think a redirect is a fair compromise to outright deletion. Since school isn't notable. Elementary schools rarely are though. So, no surprise there. Yet, it seems like a viable search term. Therefore, I'm good with a redirect as an alternative to deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not even remotely close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 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. Daniel (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Young Investors Challenge[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a non-notable recently-launched WP:ROTM minor event; search brings up only social media and similar sites — fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thieves in Black[edit]

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

I propose this article should be deleted and worked into the Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei as the only individual identified in this article has been charged as a member of this group. The intersection between these groups is hazy to me though outside of Dimitrakis so I certainly would like someone with a better understanding of the subject and of Wikipedia to take a look. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was some coverage in the Greek media on the actions of the so-called "ληστές με τα μαύρα" (= Robbers [not Thieves] in Black). But it looks like it never went beyond the presentation of similar newsfeed, and that the term "Robbers in Black" was somehow loosely in use by the Greek police and the media to connect several incidents. Writing on this "gang" (if there was a formal one) is pretty much original research. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this is a formal gang and te 'robbers/thieves in black' is a media invention to refer to some of the many active anarchist groups and teams in the area. Unfortunately though this is also original research but it is worth noting that this 'gang' does not turn up in any of the literature I have outside of a few news articles. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I was ready to say delete, but then I went deeper in Greek sources. There is a fair amount on the case against Symeon Seisidis, Mario Seisidis, Grigoris Tsironis, and Dimitrakis[7]. It appears the case went cold in 2010 (I can't tell from the machine translation)? It appears to be more than routine news/robbery since, "From 2002 to 2006, they committed seven robberies with a total booty of about 700,000 euros."[8] Alternatively, the article might be better centered around the armed robbery of the Solonos Street national bank.[9] I could be swayed by someone more familiar with the Greek sourcing but it's hard to say it lacks significant coverage after this and the above sources. Here's 2019 coverage, for proof of endurance, though unsure of source reliability. czar 19:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that this was a pure media invention, weaving a narrative through several disparate anarchist robberies but after seeing the above comments, namely Czar's, I agree with them, also looking forward to someone with a closer understanding of the material taking a look, this subject even does not get much say in the obscure en and es blogs I know of. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 14:46, 24 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. Daniel (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laksam Government Pilot High School[edit]

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

Nothing to suggest notability, and search finds no RS mentions let alone sigcov; fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DisagreeFadew-wiki 12:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep possibly a strong keep, but this looks to have passed GNG through the non-English language sources currently in the article. I only assessed their titles, but they look like they would qualifying coverage if they were in English. SportingFlyer T·C 22:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has coverage in reliable sources. Reliable sources do not need to be in English.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:32, 3 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. Daniel (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shubhi Ahuja[edit]

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

References do not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. LucyLucy (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references establish that Ahuja passes WP:NACTOR, because she has "had significant roles in multiple notable [...] television shows" Beccaynr (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep easily passes wp:gng and has some wp:rs, searched on google found many ref's. Someone needs to re write.as per WP:ATD if the article can be edited,it should be edited rather then deleted.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 02:26, 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 procedural keep. Nominator blocked, no-one advocating for deletion, and improvements to the article render this discussion moot. Daniel (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avantika Hundal[edit]

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

lack of reliable references which are independent of the subject. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG LucyLucy (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found and added a variety of news sources to support WP:NACTOR, and it appears Hundal has had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows," based on the news coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 01:15, 4 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

iQOO[edit]

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

Nothing indicates notability apart from parent Vivo. Dewritech (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dewritech (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would a Merge into Vivo (technology company) sound good to you? Foxnpichu (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page IQOO is about a well established Chinese smartphone brand introduced as a subsidiary of vivo in the year 2019 in china. But in 2020 the IQOO is launched in india as an independent brand and introduced there smartphone. Also there is an article about IQOO in the Chinese Wikipedia. So this article IQOO should not be merged or deleted, it should be like a seperate article due to it's significance. sarangmk0 (talk) 5:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It does not inherit notability from its parent company. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lai, Richard (2019-03-01). "Vivo's iQOO phones are tuned for hardcore mobile gamers". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2020-11-08. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
2. Pratap, Ketan (2020-03-09). "iQOO 3 Review". Times Now. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
3. Winkelman, Steven (2019-08-05). "Vivo IQOO Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
4. Byford, Sam (2020-04-17). "The iQOO 3 5G is a gaming phone that doesn't look like a gaming phone". The Verge. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
5. Shenoy, Aditya (2020-03-23). "iQoo 3 Review. iQoo 3 is the first smartphone from the new Chinese smartphone brand that boasts of powerful hardware". NDTV. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
6. Singh, Saurabh (2020-06-09). "iQOO 3 5G review: It's all about challenging the status quo". The Financial Express. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
7. Jhaveri, Aakash (2020-02-26). "iQoo 3 5G review". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
8. Mallick, Subhrojit (2020-03-18). "IQOO 3 5G Review". Digit. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
9. Sawant, Nimish (2020-03-02). "iQOO 3 Review: Snapdragon 865-powered gaming beast that needs a better camera". Firstpost. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
10. Sharma, Aabhas (2020-04-11). "iQoo 3 review: A fine debut, packs powerful hardware & battery, good performance at the price point". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
11. Bhattacharjee, Shomik Sen (2020-02-26). "iQOO 3 5G Review: A Successful Debut With Room To Quest On". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
12. Verma, Hansa (2020-03-04). "iQOO 3 review: Do you really need a 5G phone right now?". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
13. Bhargava, Mala (2020-03-04). "iQOO 3 review: A gaming centric phone with Snapdragon 865". Business Line. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
14. Massey, Erick (2020-03-16). "iQoo 3 5G review: A powerhouse to sway performance-hungry smartphones' user". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
15. KVN, Rohit (2020-02-25). "iQoo 3 hands-on review: First impression". Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
16. Ahaskar, Abhijit (2020-03-20). "IQOO 3: Impressive but don't expect to be blown away". Mint. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow iQoo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge to Vivo (technology company) since there is enough coverage about iQOO as a smartphone brand to establish that it is notable independent from Vivo. Cunard (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is supported by quite a few sources and, as others have pointed out, the company is now independent of Vivo, so it doesn't really make sense to merge. Not sure how much these sources have changed since the article was nominated, but I don't see the notability issues here. DocFreeman24 (talk) 19:38, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Grant (programmer)[edit]

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

I'm not seeing how this would pass WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any publications by this subject (even though he is characterized as an "author" in the article) or any independent sources covering him. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, User:Rawkintrevo appears to be the subject of this article, per their self-identification at their user page. They have already made a major edit [10] to the article, introducing WP:COI. The abortive political candidacy for a relatively minor local office is not notable. The edit also mentions a new paper, published in Sept 2020, and a new book[11], with several co-authors, also published in 2020. There is no indication that either work received significant coverage/reviews/citations that could contribute to potential WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR notability. Nsk92 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will update this today- please give me a week to back fill publications before deletion. 24, February 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawkintrevo (talk • contribs) 14:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD discussions typically stay open for a week anyway. But as your userpage indicates you are Trevor Grant, it's probably unwise for you to edit the page yourself as it's a conflict of interest (see WP:COI), but can add requests for edits to the Talk page, or make a case for not deleting here, which will be taken into account by whoever closes the discussion. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment sorry, I didn't realize they stay open for a week- and yes, I did edit- I didn't realize that was a violation. Can we revert my changes, maybe original author will update addressing other concerns? -User:rawkintrevo 24 February 2021
  - I suspect at this stage reverting won't make much difference in practice. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is clearly PROMO. None of his listed accomplishments(?) are remotely close to conferring automatic notability and independent coverage of him is entirely passing or run-of-the-mill. There's also a possible BLP-violating quote embedded in one of the refs regarding opponents in the alderman race. JoelleJay (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is this stinky pile? He's treasurer of the Apache foundation, withdrew from an election and served in the military. The title sentence is even repeated twice he's so important. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill computer science person clearly fails WP:GNG. The article is also an obvious self-WP:PROMO exercise. KidAd • SPEAK 19:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The closest we have to a claim of notability is that he's one of five coauthors of an O'Reilly how-to book. Even if we had published reviews of that one book, it wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR (or anything else). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DMySon 19:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article was created for self-promotion. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 00:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devoke water 12:23, 3 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaisu e Tabdar Ko[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (music) supplement. There is next to nothing reliable about this is in English, but maybe someone can find something in Urdu... if this cannot be saved maybe a redirect to Muhammad Iqbal would be an option, although right now his biography doesn't even mention this song (so WP:EGG...)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scratching the Door: The First Recordings of the Flaming Lips[edit]

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

Does not look notable to me. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM.-Cupper52^Discuss! 09:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article says this is an album. I didn't see any mention of a film being involved. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was sorted to incorrect delsort pages, which I have fixed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It does not need to satisfy WP:NFILM because it is not a movie. It is a record album and can be evaluated under WP:NALBUM. It passes that guideline with a robust AllMusic review and a feature article at Pitchfork, both reliable sources. It also has additional reviews from lesser-known sources including: [12], [13]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DOOMSDAYER520, and don't see how the article violates either of the guidelines mentioned.--Neateditor123 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article easily passes WP:NALBUM with the sources indicated there and above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Nothing wrong with this, also, this has nothing to do with films. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:29, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Primiani[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Doesn't meet WP:ACTOR, WP:GNG just yet. RationalPuff (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definite WP:TOOSOON. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against recreation should she in future get the coverage to pass WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an actress who does not yet meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha[edit]

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

The article is written like advertisement and I should have opted for speedy delition. The sources listed seems to be self published by caste organisation.[14] Unacceptable unencyclopaedic fonts and the editor seems to be closely associated with the organisation. Also I doubt WP:V WP:POV issue are there. I tried to clean it up but reverted back continuously by the main author to unencyclopaedic version. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This a caste based advocacy group that fails WP:ORGCRIT. Although there are some passing mentions in some article, that is expected from an advocacy group. Some of it is clearly press statements. --Walrus Ji (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing now WP:ORGCRIT is being met. Lots of sources that are passing mentions, from connected sources or just pure puffery. This article is probably better than their website at promoting them, and the obvious COI editor is WP:OWNing the article and preventing edits that would help with WP:NPOV. I'm just not seeing enough in-depth sources though. Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the article is on a more than century old foundation and notable and largest organization representing Kshatriyas and Rajputs in India since year 1897. it has been hijacked by some POV & puffery pushing editors, what it needs strong page protection and blocking of editors like [15]. I have again done clean up. Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jethwarp, You are using their claims about establishment year as fact. Such groups are known to inflate figures. I would not believe any word written in their website unless the facts are vouched by a reliable source. Talking of RS, which are the ORGCRIT satisfying sources you found? Walrus Ji (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - [16] search results for अखिल भारतीय क्षत्रिय महासभा google books — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jethwarp (talk • contribs)
Passing mentions do not help in passing WP:ORGCRIT, if you have strong reliable, third party source with significant coverage, then please present. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - Supprt Walrus Ji, most of the content have been derived from the caste organisation's website itself and the dubious websites. The third party independent sources have only passing mention.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Comment' not a single citation is from website of of organization or other website. And to be correct your opening statement I should have opted for speedy delition is false. Your speedy deletion request was already declined earlier [17] also the problemetic editor has been blocked [18] Jethwarp (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 January 12. Note that there seem to be shenanigans going on here; Walrus Ji was blocked by ArbCom for reasons unknown to me.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is a strong keep as per my arguments in deletion review I have already cited the third party soruces confirming the notability of organiztion - any one can check deletion review page , thanks Jethwarp (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources provided by Jethwarp. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, there is plenty of coverage here. Article has been significantly improved since nom. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, is a reputable trust that works for Kshatras. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:41, 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. Daniel (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Messer[edit]

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

No claim to notability, no independent sourcing. Speedy deletion was contested based on the existence of an article about the company he founded, but there is no claim of notability for that either, so that is not a credible claim of significance. bonadea contributions talk 07:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 07:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 07:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable technology businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources in the existing article are primary; searches also find this interview with the subject as well as articles by the subject (at InfoQ), but I am not seeing the coverage about the subject needed to demonstrate WP:BASIC / WP:ANYBIO notability. AllyD (talk) 10:05, 4 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 redirect to Warhammer 40,000#Necrons. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Necron (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

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

Currently the article is 100% WP:OR/WP:FANCRUFT (plot summary) based on primary sources (Games Workshop and affiliates). This fictional race seems to fail the requirements of WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. BEFORE found only [19] (which is the best source I found so far, as it discusses the products real world history a little), everything else I found is much worse - a few pages which are just plot summary recapas and some game guides on 'how to play with Necron faction'. This is interesting but not independent. Overall, I am not seeing much to help this with WP:SIGCOV; even The Gamer source contains little we can salvage outside few sentences about when the faction was created (which can be covered in the main WH40k article at Warhammer_40,000#Necrons perfectly well). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warhammer_40,000#Necrons, and perhaps merge a small amount (e.g. a few sentences!) of the relevant content there. This fictional race isn't notable enough to sustain a separate article, as Piotr said above. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree with User :Firefly. I can remember scarabs when I use to play but Necrons I barely remember them. There is some minor coverage in The Gamer, and some other gaming sites but not enough SIGCOV for a separate article.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warhammer_40,000#Necrons per Firefly, entirely Wikia material that does not demonstrate standalone notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as consensus to WP:PRESERVE. This could be covered in a few sentences. No WP:SIGCOV. Archrogue (talk) 19:01, 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 redirect to Saturnalia (Callin novel). Daniel (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Callin[edit]

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

I've actually read and enjoyed Callin's two novels, but he doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR, with one review of his first book and a small body of work. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saturnalia (Callin novel): as the only apparently notable work from the author. Easier to meet notability requirements for works than people. This seems to be a valid WP:ATD-R alternative. It can be tagged with {{R from author}}. -- 2pou (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Saturnalia is definitely wikinotable with numerous reviews including by Analog Science Fiction and Fact, Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, Science Fiction Review, Fantasy Review, and Science Fiction Chronicle, plus a Locus Award nomination (reviews/award listed here) so at the very least a "redirect" looks appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, WP:NAUTHOR requires a person's work(s) to be "significant or well-known", with Deborah's Children winning an Analog (readers) Award, and The Carhart Shale placing third this part is probably met, but is multiple reviews for one work, Saturnalia, and one review for A Lion on Tharthee (in Science Fiction Chronicle, listed here) enough to meet the 2nd part ie. "such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work ... or reviews."? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 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 13:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sofoklis Savva[edit]

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

This village official fails WP:POLITICIAN by a wide, wide, wide margin. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NPOL and I don’t see any other claim to notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lympia (pop. 2.6K) is nowhere near large enough to clinch the "automatic" notability of its local political figures in the absence of a demonstrable pass of WP:NPOL #2. The notability test for a politician at the local level of government (like community council) is not just the ability to use his primary source "staff" profile on the council's own self-published website about itself as technical verification that he exists — it hinges on showing that he's been the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to establish his significance. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NPOL. --Ashley yoursmile! 08:50, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Browns Corner, California[edit]

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

This one is a bit borderline. It's definitely used as a placename: there's a local farm and a restaurant referencing it as such. From what I can see, it has always been just a crossroads which has marked the western edge of the Woodland town/city area, to the point where there literally is sprawl on the east side of the road and farms on the west. Topos go back a long way here, and what they show is a single building that gradually grows into few, anchoring the west end of strip development, the latter having been overwhelmed itself by the growing metro area. What I cannot see is any sense that this was ever thought of as a separate town; GHits are surprisingly thin, and inevitably refer to establish a location rather than to describe it, and the name goes back to the earliest topos. Just not seeing the notability. Mangoe (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not seem to be notable. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Swordman87. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the warning on your talk page [20]. Your behaviour is disruptive.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now (as I want to avoid a hasty deletion), but perhaps the article might have to be updated with explanation about the historical context. From the available information, Brown's corner seems to have existed as a community just outside the Woodlands city. It had a few businesses (Example, in this clipping from 1930s, [21], there is a service station here). I found this pdf from sba.gov [22] where Brown's Corner seems to be treated separately from Woodlands city. I found additional mentions here which shows it is often referred to as a place (or at least used to be done so historically) [23], [24], [25]. Ultimately, the area around a particular intersection was known as Brown's corner, but it is not known whether it qualified as a populated place (although USGS terms it as such).--DreamLinker (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found another result [26] There have been several wineries in or near Woodland. The oldest, appropriately enough, named the Woodland Winery ,was located at Second and Court streets and was established in 1866 by David Barnes...In 1869 two French winemakers,Eli Lallemond and Benjamin Mendessc with a strange lack of originality in nomenclature, built at Brown's Corner,a mile west of town,"Woodland Winery Number Two".. It seems like this place has existed for a long time and was "a mile west of town". I am in favour of not deleting this article. Whether we can merge it or transform it appropriately is something we can discuss on the talk page.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more [27] from 1933 Beginning at Brown's Corner , approximately one mile 7 north of the west boundary of the city of Woodland --DreamLinker (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does anybody else agree with DreamLinker?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last go. Is it a placename, or a community?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this is anything other than the name of the road junction. Newspapers refer to e.g. "...ranch one quarter mile north of Browns Corners" etc. Notably it's listed as a polling place for West Woodland in the 1898 general election without further specificity, alongside other point locations such as Dick's Restaurant, Odd Fellows Hall and the George Green building. If it was a settlement the polling place location would have been somewhere in Browns Corners, rather than the location itself.----Pontificalibus 08:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Pontificalibus. I've looked through all of the sources, and the fact that these are only mentions, not descriptions, indicate that this probably wasn't a settlement. This further calls Brown's Corner an area a single person owned where he had a filling station and wanted to build a public campground. No indication this is a community, and as a vague place, this doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Talk 15:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: DreamLinker has done good work, but it does seem like this is a crossroads, i.e., a point of reference, a location and spot known to people, and never really was treated as a community. Alas, at least one can still get a "Browns Corner Burger" at the Browns Corner Bar and Grill.[28] I'll take mine medium.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:24, 4 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celliant[edit]

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

This brand-name polymer (nor the company which created it) does not seem to meet the general notability guidelines, and I struggled to find reliable independent sources which provide significant coverage of it.

Of the references currently on the page, the only one which establishes notability is this NYTimes Technology article circa 2003, but this alone does not support that the subject is generally notable.

As it stands now the page serves only to advertise the product, and to document its alleged health benefits. A recently reverted contribution (referenced in this Teahouse discussion) introduced many more citations, but the majority of these sources seemed to have originated from the subject's website, and served only to promote the product, rather than establish notability. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 04:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one published, company-funded, clinical trial (PMID 19386127) that was cited in the article was deleted because it was not compliant with WP:MEDRS. Furthermore, it did not include any measure of oxygenation. If improved oxygenation is the proposed mechanism, there was no supporting evidence, only speculation. The company website describes other clinical trials, but those have not yet been published in peer-reviewed journals. David notMD (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I read the process/guidelines for deletion (thank you for that page) and I would like to discuss the process/consideration for deletion of the Celliant wiki listing. The point of the listing was never to advertise or promote Celliant. I am the founder/ceo of the company and I was attempting to correct outdated and factually incorrect information that was on the wiki page. I sincerely apologize for not knowing the policy for how to correct and amend information on wiki. My intent was never to promote or create a spin/slant angle. We have developed and established IR technology for use in textiles that carry a specific claim set that is often misstated and/or criticized. We are looking to accurately and factually describe the technology, how it is made and tested, the health benefits/claims and properly cite our clinical studies- there are 8 published, peer-reviewed studies on Celliant. The end-point for one study is tissue oxygenation. Is it possible the issue was the links for the studies were incorrectly pointing back to our site? We can update with links to the journal/study/the clical.gov database? Or what is the correct protocol?
We disagree with "alleged" health benefits as besides the 8 published studies, Hologenix and Celliant products are a registered Class I medical device in several regions/countries including the EU, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. We have engaged the FDA for 10+ years and we have a letter from them that states we are not regulated in the USA but that we are a medical device and general wellness product.
Regarding notability, that is the old page referenced which was not updated. Forbes, WSJ, Huffington Post, Wired, Fast Company, Inc., have covered Celliant. We don't need or want to list/link to those stories if that is against policy. We have issued trademarks in over 1 dozen countries if that is a factor for consideration of notability (I read the guidelines but not clear what/how everything is scaled/graded). Please help us bring the page into proper guidelines and standards. Thank you. I should disclose I am a long-time supporter and donor to wiki and we want to post a correct, conforming page and we appreciate everyone's efforts to help us do so.----. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borristhedog (talk • contribs) 04:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If Forbes, WSJ, etc. have published content (not just brief mention) that is exactly the type of reliable source citations the article needs. Having trademarks: No benefit. Donations to Wikipedia Foundation are welcome, but Wikipedia itself is a separate entity operated by volunteer editors and volunteer Administrators. For any research published in journals, reference the journal directly, not the company website (not clinicaltrial.gov, either). Again, Wikipedia's concept of notability has little interest in what a company has published about itself (websites, press releases, interviews with senior management, company-sponsored clinical trials). David notMD (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The attempt to edit the article was by BayekOsiris, but above you state that were editing the article and you are now using User name Borristhedog. Editing with more than one name is a cardinal sin called "sockpuppetry." It can get all accounts indefinitely blocked. Use only one account going forward. And see your Talk page for more advice. David notMD (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, no matter how much this company wants it to be. No evidence of passing WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel a bit out of my depth here with my spam-fighting hat. The article currently looks promotional, but Google Scholar does show some research mentioning this... substance. Maybe redirect this to the article about the company that holds the patent for this, where it can be covered in the section for their products, assuming the company itself passes WP:NORG? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Appears to be a small, one-product company, although there is some internet search confusion between this Hologenix and Hologenix (https://www.hologenix.com/) both in California. David notMD (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the collective help and info. I should be also clear, I am not "BayekOsiris". When I say, "I was attempting to correct", by that I mean I engaged "BayekOsiris" to perform the update/corrections as he is our copy editor. We are not trying to use wiki as an advertising platform. We are trying to use an encyclopedia to provide accurate and correct information. Are peer-reviewed, published 3rd party journal papers not allowed as citations? What about the medical database for the EU, Japan, Australia, New Zealand? Based on the input above, we are happy to submit an updated entry for review. What is "small"? We are an ingredient brand that partners with Levi, Under Armour, Amazon, etc. "one-product" is misleading. Spandex is "one product". We integrate Celliant into a variety of fibers, yarns and, ultimately, fabrics and products. Appreciate the collaborative dialogue.Borristhedog (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: The "one product" was not intended to be disparaging. An editor had suggested this become an article about the company. My point was that as Celliant has far more written about - some of it possibly qualifying as reliable source citations supporting notability - then an article about the product is a better choice. Both you and BayekOsiris must declare your paid status (seeWP:PAID) on your User pages before doing any editing to the draft. David notMD (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: Thank you again for the further clarification. We will note paid status and prepare another draft for review. In searching wiki, it may make sense to create a "infrared textiles" listing. If I wanted to explore that further, how would I best engage? Borristhedog (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Borristhedog: Since you're new to Wikipedia, there are some very important things about it that you might not realize. So, you probably want to take a close look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Law of unintended consequences. Many people seem to think that a Wikipedia article is only a good thing, but there can also be quite a downside that isn't so obvious at first. Your intention might not to be to promote Celliant in any way, but you might not realize that you will have pretty much no editorial control over the article's content if the consensus is to keep this article. Article content (positive or negative) will be assessed based solely upon whether it's in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not how it affects your company. So, if you're looking for a Wikipedia-type of set up where you can possibly have such editorial control, then you might want to check out WP:ALTERNATIVE since there are other websites which may be better suited for such a thing. I'm not trying to discourage you from arguing trying to have this article kept, but you might want to consider whether it's something you really want as a company. Wikipedia didn't need your permission for an article about Celliant to be created and it will be kept regardless of whether doing so is in the best interests of your company as long as the WP:CONSENSUS is that Celliant meets WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG. If the article does end up being kept, it will be an article written about Celliant (not for Celliant), and it will be "owned" by the Wikipedia community as a whole so to speak, and the community's interests are highly unlikely to be the same as your company's interests. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One option an Administrator may take at the end of this AfD process is to draftify the article rather than delete it. That would allow the draft to be edited, then submitted to AfC. One example of what Marchjuly wrote about, is that if the article survives this AfD, then the 2019 news item "Multiple Energy Technologies Sues Hologenix for False and Misleading Claims Regarding Celliant" could be added. David notMD (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion and education has been extremely helpful and I continue to want to express my gratitude for the community's collective efforts. Thank you! Noted Marchjuly and David notMd's comments. Again, the intention is to have a completely objective listing that contains all factual information- good, bad, ugly. The mission of wiki is to not slant or shape the information that it shares/provides. I recognize the missteps/mistakes that were made as we attempted to correct factually inaccurate information on the page for Celliant and I understand the justifiably cold reaction it received. We were never under the impression that we would own or control the narrative. We just want fair and correct info. If an Administrator is able to draftify the article, great. I would like the Administrator and the community to consider creating an article on "responsive textiles" or "Infrared (IR) textiles" or the "bioceramic" article be edited/expanded to include applications in textiles. Maybe Celliant is listed in that article with no hyperlink? The goal/vision is to create/expand the education and awareness of "responsive textiles" and the field/applications. Our body is an energy source emitting between 80-100 watts at any given moment/second and we have developed a way to harness and utilize that energy to create a health benefit through embedding and printing thermo-reactive minerals into/onto textiles. This belongs on wiki in some form or fashion. And if that includes listing all of the skeptics and doubters, so be it. Global warming is still debated by some, we have the "flat earth society" and some people say we haven't been to the moon. All we can do is seek to provide the information we have gathered and let people make their own decisions. My biggest concern is who is the ultimate arbitrator of the "facts"? As an example, how is it determined that "alleged health benefits" becomes "health benefits". Celliant has health benefits but clearly there are still people that don't believe it. As long as we have an objective review, we can be at peace with the outcome. Looking forward to further input. Borristhedog (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPRODUCT. The NYT citation is about a company then called Hologenix with its Holofiber which I take is the predecessor of the material here. The other two mention an activewear company that once used the fiber and the other is a list of retailers. If the sources are this stale and scarce then neither the company nor the product pass the WP:GNG bar. Blue Riband► 03:00, 6 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) 14:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goodmill, California[edit]

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

Even the oldest topos I could find only show this as "Goodmill (site)", and I can find essentially nothing about this spot; GBook hits tend to be misscans of "Goodwill". SO I'm going to say this fails verification. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Giant Sequoia National Monument: The location does exist per the topo maps (saw on 1952 and newer ones), but there's nothing I can find saying it was ever a populated place, or a notable one. Since it lies alongside Mill Flat Creek, we can imagine there was some logging/sawmill activity there at some point. The site currently lies within the Giant Sequoia National Monument acreage. I see some references to "Goodmill Day Use Area"[29] and a "Goodmill OHV Route" in the area.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched JSTOR, Internet archive, and Google Scholar and found nothing about this item. There is not anything so far found that is verifiable by a reliable source as being notable that can added to Giant Sequoia National Monument as part of a redirect. Paul H. (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found a single modern reference to tree death in the Goodmill area, but nothing that establishes this as a community. The site of this is near to a feature marked on the oldest topos as "Old Sawmill", so this could well be a literal mill, although we can't prove that. Hog Farm _Talk 14:49, 4 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Min (ship)[edit]

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

Lack of sufficient notability; a ship built for a television program. Fails WP:GNG. The article cites that television program and a blog. The article is only two sentences and has been that way for a decade. It seems destined to be a permastub. It was dePRODed by Andrew Davidson without explanation. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about the TV program itself. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BarrelProof, did you search for sources before nominating the article? Because if you did, you would have found plenty that would make it easy to build out the article. Examples: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did try, but not very hard. The fact that "Min" is not a very unique name may have hindered my efforts. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We keep articles on notable topics, even if the content is a stub and no one has expanded it. Remember there is no deadline for doing so. The fact that significant coverage in reliable sources is easily found means the topic is notable, and Wikipedia should have an article on it. @BarrelProof: I think you should withdraw this nomination. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some sources, the article should probably be renamed Min of the Desert, which is the actual name of the vessel. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had that thought too. That would also allow us to get rid of the parenthetical. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Rename - Usernameunique has already shown that there was plenty of coverage on this ship in reliable sources, so Keeping should be a given at this point. I agree with Anachronist that the article should be renamed to Min of the Desert, as that is the full name of the vessel. Rorshacma (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rename as per Rorshacma's comment. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've updated the title as suggested above and made a start on other improvements. I was particularly pleased to find a good picture (right). As for the PROD, notice that the nominator did not notify the page's creator – Anthony Appleyard – when they tagged it for "uncontroversial deletion". Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The creation of that article was an investment of about 5 minutes time a decade ago. Deleting a permastub shouldn't involve a lot more effort than creating one. (And I did notify both Appleyard and you when I filed the AfD.) — BarrelProof (talk) 16:21, 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 speedy keep. WP:SK1 Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC) fixed by TheSandDoctor ^Talk at 00:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plate theory (volcanism)[edit]

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

As is, this article is a WP:POVFORK of mantle plume. In geology and geophysics, the idea of mantle plumes not existing at all is pretty fringe, and this article presents this idea without any criticism, based on primarily on the research of the minority of scholars who support such views, such as Gillian Foulger and Don L. Anderson. Alternative models to mantle plumes should be discussed in the mantle plume article, where they can be critiqued in context. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per SphericalSong's comments, to give the article a chance to improve. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The mantle plume hypothesis is quite controversial and the work of gathering and analysing the evidence about what is actually going on is a work-in-progress. See The question of mantle plumes for a reasonable survey of the issue. As it's not so long since plate tectonics itself became established, it's clear that the science is not settled and so we should not be trying to pick winners. In any case, none of this is a reason to delete as the debate about the competing theories is highly notable. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if Mantle plume is also kept. Delete if Mantle plume is also deleted. Current lack of criticism in an article should not be justification for deletion of the article if this problem could be solved by adding such criticism, sourced from reliable secondary sources. Mantle plumes and plate theory (volcanism) are currently treated by most of their supporters as mutually exclusive explanations of intraplate volcanism (but perhaps reality/"the truth" may eventually be understood to involve a combination of both explanations, depending on the features of individual examples, but it's still too early to decide). Of these three articles, the top-level article in the hierarchy is intraplate volcanism not mantle plume. The two main opposing explanations (Plate theory (volcanism) and Mantle plumes) have their own articles, below intraplate volcanism in the article hierarchy. Would it be more accurate to regard both plate theory (volcanism) and mantle plumes as possible point of view forks of intraplate volcanism with equal "forking" status because both are proposed explanations of intraplate volcanism? If so, why should Plate theory (volcanism) be deleted for forking, while mantle plume is allowed to survive? Perhaps it may be fairer (and more in keeping with Wikipedia Policy:neutral point of view) to delete both plate theory (volcanism) and mantle plume leaving only the intraplate volcanism article. (A merge template message: "It has been suggested that Mantle plume and Plate theory (volcanism) be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since January 2021." is currently displayed at the top of the intraplate volcanism article). GeoWriter (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And who is doing this cleanup, exactly? I really don't blame Kent G. Budge for bailing, as it's easily many dozens of hours of work to clean this stuff up. WP:NPOV states that Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Mantle plumes are a tricky topic, but the outright denial of the existence of mantle plumes is a minority opinion in contemporary geophysics, and as such this should be reflected in the proportion to the prominence given to such views. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this, the more I think a RfC on WT:GEOLOGY is likely to be a better resolution. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are problems with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, but I believe they can be solved. I also agree that discussion of a Request for Comment on WT:GEOLOGY (and/or discussion at the existing Talk:Intraplate_volcanism#Merger_proposal) will probably be a better course of action than this Article for deletion request, because it may make discussion of the contents and fate of the three linked articles easier. GeoWriter (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While mantle plumes (MP) is the prevalent, accepted theory for almost all major instances of intraplate volcanism (IV), this IV hypothesis seems to have enough (albeit minority) traction in the real world for viable alternative consideration of some such instances. A major part of the problem here is presentational: it is sometimes presented as "either MP explains all, or IV explains all". This polarisation certainly should, of course, be resisted. But that doesn't undermine the acceptance of "perhaps IV might be an explanation of some". So keep but monitor and fix the articles, particularly IV, to remove any exclusive either/or comparisons. Might we also rename it from "intraplate volcanism" to "intraplate volcanism hypothesis" to help convey that it is hypothesis rather than more formal theory? Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The intraplate volcanism article should be expanded to include more description of the products of such volcanism e.g. landforms and lava compositions. This would reduce the proportion of the article related to hypothetical/theoretical explanations and avoid the renaming of the article. GeoWriter (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As you’ll see from my username, I created this page, and also edited several hotspot pages and related ones. First, I would like to state that I am not Gillian Foulger, as some of you have suggested. I prefer to remain anonymous, and I believe this is something Wikipedia allows me to do. I am also not trying to use Wikipedia to surreptitiously promote the plate theory. One of the central maxims on the various guides on Wikipedia is “assume good faith”, so please extend me this courtesy and allow me to explain the motivations behind my edits and creation of this page.

I have fairly recently taken an interest in volcanic hotspots and the debate surrounding mantle plumes and was interested to see how the debate is presented to the public on Wikipedia. When looking through the Wikipedia pages on various hotspots, I saw that many of these pages are quite substantial and informative, cite a good range of up-to-date literature, and discuss both plume and tectonic explanations. A number of pages, however, simply state the plume interpretation as fact. Many of these are stubs, consisting of a sentence or two. Some of them have no citations, while others either cite a website or a very old paper such as Morgan’s original article on mantle plumes – fifty years old this year.

While reading some of the literature on the foregoing hotspots, I thought it would be useful to edit the pages. My main motivation was to expand the pages by providing more details on both plume and tectonic interpretations and to substantiate these details with references to recent scientific literature in order to better inform the public (and many students who use Wikipedia) of current debates about the origin of volcanic activity in these areas. A secondary – and rather more selfish – motivation was to help myself to remember what I was learning by writing something about it, and improving the Wikipedia pages about and related to some hotspots seemed to be a good opportunity to do this. It was never my intention to argue for a particular view, but rather to present the origins of volcanic activity in the areas as open questions which are subject to ongoing debate. It was never my intention to take sides. Like many scientists, I’m actually agnostic on this issue – knowledge of the Earth’s interior is still very much in its infancy, and this is one of the things that makes the topic so fascinating. If my edits came across as favouring the plate hypothesis, this is because I am very new to Wikipedia editing and was not aware of the requirement that majority views should be stated in greater detail than minority views. I am currently working towards re-editing the pages, going into more detail on the different plume interpretations and evidence for them and citing more articles, and making clear that tectonic explanations are a minority view where this is the case. (In some cases the latter are more popular: the Newer Volcanics Province in Australia, for example – while plume interpretations are widely held for the older time-progressive volcanism to the northeast, many – including those who advocate plumes elsewhere – think tectonic interpretations are more plausible for the NVP.)

Having edited the hotspot pages, I thought it would be a good idea to create a page for the plate theory/hypothesis (I don’t think much hinges on whether it’s called a “theory” or a “hypothesis” and have no quarrel with anyone who wants to change it to the latter). Here again, my intention was (a) to inform the public and students about the theory and (b) to consolidate what I was learning about it, not to promote the theory. As many of you rightly note, it is in indeed in need of improvement, and it was always intended as a work in progress that I would go back and improve as I learn more about the debate – and of course it is open to others to improve it too. One of the main problems with it, as has been noted, is that it doesn’t include criticism of the theory. Another, as Feline Hymnic has rightly pointed out, is that it and other pages related to the debate present the debate in an overly simplistic manner, as if one view has to be correct and the other wrong. Actually, as FH notes, things are much more subtle. On the one hand, few scientists believe that plumes can explain all volcanism not obviously associated with subduction zones and spreading ridges. On the other hand, only a minority go so far as to deny the existence of plumes. It may well be that volcanic anomalies are polygenetic, with some caused by plumes and others caused by shallow tectonic processes - this seems to be the view of many geoscientists. I agree with FH that the page should indeed be reframed in a way that reflects such subtleties.

There are a few other things I would like to highlight briefly. My inclusion of a link to mantleplumes.org was not intended to promote the website – which I have nothing to do with – but merely to direct the interested reader to further information about the plate theory and the debate about mantle plumes. Many Wikipedia pages have links to websites for further information, so I didn’t think this was problematic. Some of you have issues with the images and have requested their deletion. If there are problems with copyright, this is because I am new to Wikipedia editing and may indeed have made some mistakes when uploading images to Wikimedia. The process seems rather complicated, so any advice on the correct procedure for uploading and using images would be very much appreciated.

My proposal for the page is as follows. As some of you have pointed out, revising the page will be a fair amount of work, and as I created it, it seems appropriate that I should take on the work. First, I will reframe the discussion in line with Feline Hymnic’s observations, so that it doesn’t come across as an “all-or-nothing” issue. Second, I will make clear that the plate theory (and especially the outright denial of mantle plumes) is a minority view. Third, I will add a section on “criticisms of the plate theory”. It was always my intention to add such a section, and I am currently reading literature criticising the theory with a view to doing this. Fourth, I will rectify the issue with the images. I am open to suggestions for further improvements.

I will find time to complete the above tasks in the next few weeks. Obviously, I would prefer to be given the opportunity to do this and would rather the page wasn’t simply deleted. For many hotspots, the plate theory is indeed a minority view. But there is substantial disagreement and debate among the scientific community, and this I think should be reflected on Wikipedia, which is often the first port of call for students, laypeople, and even researchers who want to learn about an area of science. Many other minority views have a presence on Wikipedia, and if the page needs improving so as to better fit with the aims of Wikipedia – and I readily concede that it does – then allow me to improve it.

I thank you for your comments and suggestions, which will be invaluable in helping me revise the page. My apologies for not coming forward and discussing this earlier. Aside from being busy with other things, I have been surprised and rather anxious about the controversy I seem to have caused with my edits and my creation of the page in question. It was never my intention to cause controversy, and I wasn’t sure how best to engage with the discussions that are taking place. I am doing so now because I feel it is important (a) to stress that I made the edits and page in good faith and with no hidden agenda and (b) to make clear my intention to make the necessary improvements to the page under discussion. All the best, SphericalSong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SphericalSong (talk

@SphericalSong: Thanks for this thorough and contrite response. Sorry I assumed bad faith about your intentions, mantleplumes.org promoting your work made me suspicious, though it's always easy to be a cynic. I shall withdraw this deletion request now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:19, 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.

[1] "Father concerned for daughter's safety on board '˜overcrowded' school bus". www.wscountytimes.co.uk. Retrieved 2021-02-20.

[2] "Compass Travel on course for improvement with Freeway". www.transportengineer.org.uk. Retrieved 2021-02-20.

[1]

[2]