Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 25	February 27 >

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Loholt Kristiansen[edit]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to a single 9-minute substitute appearance in an allegedly 'fully professional league' six years ago. The rest of his football career has been at a much lower level and there is no evidence of any WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the player is very young with an active career and passes WP:NFOOTBALL. This and this are both paywalled so not sure if significant or not. We typically give a bit of leeway to young players who have relatively recently passed the SNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spiderone the subject is 22 years and actively playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The notion that someone is still playing carries little weight if sources to support gng can't be shown. There's indication that these might be there but nothing concrete. Worth another week to see if these can be clearly shown, but otherwise this is a delete at this stage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I had a second look but couldn't find anything better Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not keep articles because maybe latter the subject will meet the inclusion criteria. We judge them based on the present not the unknown future and by the guidelines of the present Kristiansen fails notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fair enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 5 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bayode Treasures Olawunmi[edit]

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

BLP for a person who read books "for 122 hours over a five-day stretch"- seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records, we do not include people just because they reach some arbitrary meaningless record of doing something.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. --Devoke water 17:50, 5 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) 23:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarique Kalam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has played 9 FC matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:06, 26 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)} 22:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only played a few List A matches for a University team, the only coverage of him is statistical databases, clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the significant coverage needed to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage so fails WP:GNG. In addition, fails a strict interpretation of NCRIC since matches involving university were not the "highest standard" at this time (i.e. there is no equivalence with first-class, and this paradox has finally ended). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:06, 5 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. Sandstein 19:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Yuppie Pricks[edit]

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

No claims to notability found. Flalf^Talk 22:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage found to establish notability: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], multiple album reviews in Maximum Rocknroll. --Michig (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above such as Exclaim, The Austin Chronicle, Punk News and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 5 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 Ciara (album). Daniel (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Turnt Up[edit]

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

Not notable per , was not released a single, did not chart and received limited coverage, mainly as part of its inclusion on the album. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Ciara (album). Fails WP:NSINGLE and WP:GNG. Has not received enough coverage for a reasonably detailed article. The lyrics are copyright infringement per WP:NOTLYRICS. HĐ (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ciara (album). There is information about the song at the album page. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 5 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) 23:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia González[edit]

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

Nothing in my searches to suggest that this player passes WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. The best source that I could find was this routine announcement in Vavel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Philip Neri Catholic School[edit]

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

Almost never are elementary schools notable, there is nothing to suggest otherwise for this. The fact it stops as 8th instead of 6th grade does not change that it is part of the general class of elementary schools. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This promotional article on a non-notable primary school fails WP:GNG, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:ORG. Enough said. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo content aside, this is clearly a non-notable school. So, it not surprisingly fails WP:NORG and the article should therefore be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only trivial coverage found during a search, fails WP:NORG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Primary and Middle Schools are generally NN. This article is a badly written ADVERT, as it does not even indicate where the school is. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grand'mere Eugene and Peterkingiron. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:12, 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) 23:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CEC European Managers[edit]

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

1. notability: A quick search for sources found some press releases, an unattributed partnership news piece. That fails WP:GNG, let alone WP:NCORP. 2. WP:NOT promotion - this is blatant promotional editing by 5x WP:SPA accounts and 2x IPs Widefox; talk 21:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything in that article that implies notability. My search for references, found some self promotion and some minor mentions. Jeepday (talk) 16:33, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hafeez Manji[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Has only played 1 List-A match, but it was for his national side. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played for the national side in a LA match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has represented his country, therefore playing at the highest level of the sport Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arsalan Anwar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has played 2 FC and 2 T20 matches, as well as an U-19 Test, the first two passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in two FC matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the coverage rises to the level of actually passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played multiple first class matches, which as noted above passes WP:NCRIC. Although not definitive for the purposes of the threshold, the relevance of the article is enhanced by having played in four U19 international matches. DevaCat1 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep due to rough consensus in favour.

As a separate comment, NCRIC is a notability guideline, not an essay. Its relevance as a guideline should be discussed via an RfC, not here. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waseem Bhatti[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Played 4 FC matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. There's also a nice article about him playing in France from the Sydney Morning Herald that probably passes him for WP:GNG also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in four FC matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete comprehensively fails WP:GNG with only scorecards and a two-sentence mention/quote in the Sydney Morning Herald. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he has played 4 first class matches, so passes WP:NCRIC with some ease, as that only requires one first class match. He has coverage on various websites, including the Sydney Morning Herald. Suspect this is another article which could be expanded and improved with a bit more reviewing of sources. DevaCat1 (talk) 00:54, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information Technology Society of Sri Lanka[edit]

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

Declined a few times at WP:AfC. Creator continues to create this article. WP:NORG failure still not addressed; brief quotes from the president do not amount to significant coverage even if in reliable sources. I could not find multiple sources addressing this organisation directly and in depth so notability is still not established. I suspect their may be some underlying promotional intent even though the article itself is written in a neutral tone. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per nom and WP:A7, consider salting if it keeps getting created. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NORG - majority of sources/references are primary sources (i.e. press releases by the society or interviews/quotes from the president on behalf of the society). Needs to be about the society covered in independent sources.Dan arndt (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wish them luck, but fails notability. Rklahn (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt – I've previously A7'd this and nothing has changed since then. There also appears to be COI editing and potentially block evasion going on here. --Blablubbs|talk 21:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Multiple IPs, newly created accounts, disruptive editing all around. Ifnord (talk) 16:31, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Bwibo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Has only played 1 List-A match, but it was for his national side. Looks to have gone into coaching post career also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in a match for the national side. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I could probably make a pretty good delete argument here too, but there's just enough coverage of him online to where he might pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has represented his country, therefore playing at the highest level of the sport Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 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. No existing page to redirect to. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Javed[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Lahore Ravi cricketers or similar Has played 2 FC matches, but I could find no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where players with 1 or a few matches but no coverage, are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, only sourced to scorecards or squad lists, no significant coverage. No issue with a redirect providing a good page is found/created. SportingFlyer T·C 23:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG requires significant coverage which is entirely lacking in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV, only wide ranging databases and scorecards. Also questionable whether he meets a strict interpretation of NCRIC's "highest domestic standard" due to the structure of the first-class game in Pakistan during the season he appeared. No suitable list to merge/redirect into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:22, 5 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) 23:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Mohammad Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Rawalpindi cricketers or similar Has played 1 List-A match, but I could find no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few appearances but no coverage, are deleted/redirected. Note the CricketArchive external link on the page is for another player. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, only sourced to scorecards, cannot find any sources in English. SportingFlyer T·C 23:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources amount to the substantial coverage needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this player ever received significant coverage, no apparent alternative to deletion available Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 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 redirect to Islamabad cricket team. May be better to redirect to a list of cricketers if/when it's created. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waheed Iqbal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Islamabad cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC match, but I could find no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where players with 1 or a few matches but no coverage, are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islamabad cricket team. Per Rugbyfan22, redirect sounds reasonable here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:51, 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. No current target for proposed redirect. Daniel (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naved Ahmed (Faisalabad cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Faisalabad cricketers or similar Has played in 1 FC and 1 List-A match, but no coverage I could find. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few appearances but no coverage, is deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourced only to scorecards, appearances marginal, fails WP:GNG. No problem with a redirect provided a good target is found. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 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 Slow Food. Daniel (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Food Nation[edit]

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

Article duplicates information already in Slow Food and topic is not notable on its own. Delete article, but leave a redirect to Slow Food#United States if needed. Platonk (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Author here) There was dedicated coverage of this in a pretty important set of newspapers of record, which I think clearly passes the notability bar. On the other hand, the article is pretty short and because it's an event that may or may not ever happen again, I don't think it would be a big deal to merge and redirect to Slow Food. Steven Walling • talk 19:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Slow Food. It can always be separated out again if the event series grows, but right now it's unlikely to expand beyond a stub. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 16:10, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liju Prabhakar[edit]

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

I am concerned that Prabhakar doesn't meet any of the 4 criteria at WP:CREATIVE; I don't think the Kerala State Film Award is enough to pass this on its own. Every single source cited is only a passing mention and the only other source that I could find in my search was this, which is also a passing mention. I am, therefore, concerned about WP:GNG as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think He meet the criteria WP:CREATIVE . Liju Prabhakar won won 50th Kerala State Film Awards For best colourist and widely cited.[11][12][13]. Liju Prabhakar played a major role in Many great films Including Churuli [14],Chola (film)[15][16],Chase[17],Njan Marykutty [18],Drishyam 2,Happy Wedding. His Work has significant attention in most of the movies that he has worked. So I think this article needed in wikipedia. Thank you Darsana.vinod (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. All of those are what we call 'passing mentions'. In other words, he is mentioned once along with several other people but none of the sources give him any actual coverage. I will do a full source analysis in a moment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis - no WP:SIGCOV found; see below Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/50th-kerala-state-film-awards-lijo-jose-pellissery-suraj-venjaramoodu-among-winners/article32842034.ece			Name check - they literally couldn't even be bothered to write his full name - it just says 'Liju'	✘ No
https://www.asianetnews.com/entertainment-news/state-film-award-winning-movie-vasanthi-qi4ypa			Just a name check	✘ No
https://www.freepressjournal.in/entertainment/regional-film-news/director-vilok-shettys-chase-continues-to-speed-towards-post-production		?	Another name check	✘ No
https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/director-vilok-shetty-s-chase-enters-post-production-1753796-2020-12-28		?	Name check, same as previous ref	✘ No
https://www.sify.com/movies/vasanthi-lijo-suraj-and-kani-win-big-at-kerala-state-film-awards-imagegallery-malayalam-uknjM9iahebjf.html			No significant coverage	✘ No
https://www.mathrubhumi.com/movies-music/news/vasanthi-malayalam-movie-by-siju-wilson-swasika-1.4558121		?	No significant coverage	✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11569994/mediaviewer/rm669681153/			Mentioned once on the poster	✘ No
https://www.moviebuff.com/liju-prabhakar	?		No coverage	✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/sleeplessly-yours-made-by-a-young-cast-and-crew-in-the-city-has-won-a-place-in-the-malayalam-cinema-now-package-of-iffk/article25309470.ece			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.telegraphindia.com/entertainment/suspense-thriller-chase-has-indias-first-woman-dolby-atmos-expert-working-on-it/cid/1801894			Passing mention	✘ No
https://www.newskarnataka.com/sandalwood/chase-has-all-the-making-of-a-commercial-potboiler-director-vilok-shetty			Passing mention, no notability established	✘ No
https://www.theweek.in/news/entertainment/2020/12/25/two-movies-by-documentary-maker-don-palathara-to-be-screened-at-.html			As per all above	✘ No
https://dekochi.com/guardian-2021-film.html	?	Blog		✘ No
https://theprimetime.in/a-new-poster-for-chora-the-best-film-to-be-seen-in-malayalam-cinema-has-been-released/			Not mentioned	✘ No
https://www.cinestaan.com/people/liju-prabhakar-143736/filmography	?			✘ 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}}.

Delete none of the sources provide significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mendota Station, California[edit]

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

This one is another one that's hard to search for. No GNIS entry, not in Gudde, nothing here on topos. I can find some references to three things that could be known as Mendota station, and I'm not seeing anything that would support a notable community being at this location. There is/was a railroad station in Mendota known as Mendota station, but this location isn't particularly close to Mendota. There is a Mendota Substation for electrical production, but it is also too close to the city of Mendota to be this place. There was also a Mendota oil pumping station; I can't find the exact location of where that was. This just doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND as there's no real proof of a notable location at this spot. Hog Farm _Talk 18:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Negligently misrepresented source calls it "a place" on a map, not a community. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Article is a stub that establishes zero notability for this location.TH1980 (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Doesn't shows any significant importanace, hence fails WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 06:41, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Slaight[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, whose claims of notability per WP:NMUSIC are not "inherently" notable enough to withstand how little reliable source coverage she actually has. The strongest notability claim here is that her sole recorded EP peaked at #10 on the charts -- but that peak wasn't on the Canadian Albums Chart, but actually on the Canadian Emerging Artists Chart, which is Canada's equivalent to Heatseekers and thus not a notability-making chart.
The next best notability claim is a single which did well at adult contemporary radio -- but that was a duet with another singer who has a strong enough notability claim that his article isn't going anywhere, not a solo single, so any information we need about it can be contained in his article without needing a virtually unsourceable BLP of her to exist alongside it. And otherwise, what's left is a couple of other singles that grazed the very low reaches of the Canadian Hot 100, peaking at positions far too low to confer instant notability freebies in the absence of adequate sourceability.
But the only references here are a discogs.com entry and her own self-published press release about herself, neither of which are notability-making sources, and even on a search for legitimate media coverage all I can find is a two-article blip of "local singer tries to make it" in her hometown media at the time of the EP's release, which isn't enough to clinch passage of WP:GNG if it's all she's got. She hasn't stayed active as a recording artist in the intervening decade, so there's no likely prospect of improved coverage happening in the near future either -- if she does achieve something more notable in the future, then an article can obviously be recreated at that time, but nothing here is already "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have quite a bit more reliable source coverage than she has. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon. Trillfendi (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 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. Whilst there may be routine coverage of individual matches, that should not be synthesised to suggest that there is coverage of the season in any significant manner as a whole. Match reporting occurs at all but the lowest level, what doesn't occur beyond the most notable levels is significant volumes of sourceable prose that discusses the season as a whole or at least in signficant parts. Fenix down (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Stirling Albion F.C. season[edit]

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

PROD concern was Stats article that does not meet WP:NSEASONS criteria for presumed notability (at least two tiers below professional level) and there is nothing remarkable enough about this season to suggest a WP:GNG pass either. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a sports almanac.

Contested with Plenty sources to meet GNG. Remarkable isnt a criteria. As for NSeasons GNG More impoerant

I don't agree that the sourcing provided shows GNG as they are all, without exception, bare minimum match reporting and transfer reporting, which is routine coverage that any season gets. I found this article which shows some depth of coverage but it's about the previous season. I can't find anything similar for 2012–13 and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate stats database. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Surely too low a level of football for such a highly detailed statistical article. Nigej (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - playing in 4th tier of Scottish football, no evidence this season was notable or had any significant coverage. Giant Snowman 08:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Again I feel WP:NSEASONS is biased towards certain leagues and feel basic GNG is met in the Scottish League. These seasons articles do help complete a picture for Scottish league football clubs and can be helpful to Scottish fans of that club. So I am neither for or against here. Govvy (talk) 12:13, 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. No current target for proposed redirect, can be added at editor discretion if/when it is created. Daniel (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Butt (Bahawalpur cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, which Urdu-language resources did the nominator search before determining that there was no reliable sources? Hack (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you have found some? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:55, 23 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 17:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Bahawalpur cricketers or similar Has played 2 FC matches, but I couldn't find any coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where players with one of a few matches but no coverage, are deleted/redirected. If any Urdu coverage can be found, please ping me and i'll reconsider. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles are kept only when people can proactively identify sources, we do not keep articles because of some empty assertion that sources might exist someone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only trivially passes NCRIC and there is no evidence of any significant coverage; no redirect target exists Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 5 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 17:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Spitzfaden[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG — former mayor of Mandeville, Louisiana (population ~11k), whose local coverage was mostly limited to quotes about various city events. The city named a (non-notable) small community center after him, but that does not meet WP:ANYBIO's threshold of "a well-known and significant award or honor". DanCherek (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd just like to note that even before I actually checked the edit history to see who had created this, I already (and correctly) knew who it was going to be. As always, every mayor of every town is not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because he existed, Louisiana does not get special dispensation to treat its mayors differently than mayors everywhere else (and abracadabra, now the rest of you know exactly who created this too!), and just verifying the mayor's existence through primary sources, raw tables of election results and the ability to locate an obituary somewhere is not enough to get a mayor over the bar that mayors actually have to clear. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls incredibly short of WP:NPOL and the sourcing is well short of a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a not at all notable local mayor. Wikipedia is not Louisianapedia (or New Jerseypedia, or Dedhampedia, those are the other two particularly over created local areas).John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Robbins (talk show)[edit]

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

a short lived talk show that isn't itself notable. There is no meaningful coverage of it but I have no opposition to redirecting it to Mel Robbins article. CUPIDICAE💕 16:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The show does not appear to have garnered enough coverage to be independently notable. Pretty much all coverage I can find is simply on its cancelation. I was going to suggest a Redirect to Mel Robbins, but then I realized this article is not even the correct title. The show was named The Mel Robbins Show, which already serves as a Redirect to that article. I can't see this incorrect title being useful as a search term. Rorshacma (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created long after the talk show stopped airing altogether (and was written in present tense as if it was a new show; draft checkers, please double-check the article text before approving it!), and the sentence in the BLP covers it just fine already; this isn't a proper title to redirect. Nate • (chatter) 23:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've also added the proper categories to The Mel Robbins Show redirect as a result of this AfD to properly class it. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 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 and redirect to Rush Limbaugh#Phony soldiers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phony soldiers controversy[edit]

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

This overblown article is about a single incident from September - October 2007 that is adequately covered at the Rush Limbaugh article. All of the references are from September or October 2007, indicating that this incident did not have lasting historical significance and thus is not notable. I just checked to see if it received renewed media attention with Limbaugh’s recent death, but it didn’t. The article is massively bloated; almost half of it consists of extended quotes or transcripts. I believe it should be deleted, then converted to a redirect to Rush Limbaugh#Phony soldiers. Note: The article, under a previous non-neutral name, was kept at AfD in October 2007, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid Smear Letter. MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Also, its undue weight. Rklahn (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rush Limbaugh#Phony soldiers: Definitely an indication of WP:ROUTINE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very minor reference may (or may not) be worth having in the article on Rush Limbaugh, but this article creates undue weight, and reflects mainly the historic fact that when this occur was before we had any even semi-adeqaute regulation or article creation in Wikipedia. It is a huge failure of not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Devoke water 17:56, 5 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) 23:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Belle, California[edit]

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

This one appears to be the result of a glitch in topo map labelling. The feature is in fact the Dora Belle Campground, and it is still there, up against the lake. The maps labelled it thus, but the label was in the font for a town, and a bit to the west. Then for some reason the word "Campground" got dropped, and so eventually there were three labels: two "Dora Belle"s and one campground. At any rate there was not and is not anything like a settlement in this area north of town. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not a community as discovered by Mangoe. Looked through Google Scholar, Books, and Search and found nothing related either to a populated place or community. Also, found nothing of significance concerning it. Also, nothing useful in JSTOR. Paul H. (talk) 05:01, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XL (programming language)[edit]

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

Previously nominated with concensus to an article which was already AfD'ed and then merged to create *this* article, which sort of seems like a bad AfD closure. This language is not a notable computer science effort or product. Fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. Marked for notability for more than two years, only one single reference. Mikeblas (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: King University seem to think that the programming language is notable.SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This reference is shallow, de rigueur coverage; it's a glossary of languages with minimal entries. WP:GNG reminds us that we need significant coverage from multiple sources in order to establish notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Found a research paper ^[1] that has received considerable citations and a couple sites like ycombinator and IT History Society that suggests there was at-least some academic interest in it. However, it might be better to have a condensed and brief article. Wikishagnik (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of the links you offer are 404. Was there a typo in ... both? ycombinator is just a forum, so I don't think it's WP:RS. I find this link over at the ITHistory site, but it's shallow, de regeur coverage and I don't think the three sentences it contains establish notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To determine whether credible sources exist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a prominent programming language --Devokewater 17:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How did you reach that conclusion? Are you able to share the evidence that you've found? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Interstellarity (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Apilado[edit]

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

This person is supposedly a supercentenarian. However, her age is unvalidated. This person was listed at List of living centenarians, which I took out because no reliable sources have indicated she is still alive. Not many reliable sources indicate that she is notable. Interstellarity (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, her age being unvalidated is irrelevant to her notability. Question marks regarding a person's age is not a criterion for deletion, nor is the fact that her living status is uncertain. That can be seen as a strawman from the nominator. Second of all, there are over 10 citations in the article, including several university-related pages. Source #1 and #6, for instance, establish her as a race-relations activist. Source #7 gives her independent coverage long before she reached old age. Her writings as a magazine writer is cited (#10) in a University thesis in a topic related to African-Americans. Yes, it would be great if the article could be improved additionally (it's only existed for a little over a year), but I honestly believe that she meets the minimum criteria for having an article. The weight of RS is more important than the sheer amount. I suppose the nominator might find the topic of race-relations in the United States unimportant, but other don't. OscarL 16:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The notability of an individual is not determined by whether or not an official body has recognised their age. Apilado has a page on The History Makers, which profiles her and features an interview from 2004. The History Makers project was compiled to document notable individuals from African-American backgrounds who excelled in their respective fields. That aside, a quick Google reveals that she has received a large amount of coverage for matters unrelated to her age, from a variety of sources. Finally, her Wikipedia profile is well sourced, demonstrates sufficient notability and passes all requirements for a standalone article. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the point of this article is that Apilado is notable as a writer/editor, I would recommend emphasizing that point rather than focusing on her being a supercentenarian. Supposedly, the subject is still alive at 112 years old, but there don't seem to be any sources cited referencing her still being alive published since 2009. But if her claim to notability is based on being a writer/editor, then we don't have to worry about whether she was really born in 1908. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Strandwitz[edit]

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

Fails, WP:Academics. Seems like left academia for industry without spending enough time to develop a notable academic career. And beyond that, there seems to be little else that rises to the level of notability. Hulatam (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He got his PhD in 2016 and has just 7 publications, so this looks very much like resumé-padding for future employment/credibility for his business. He does have a couple papers in Nature with his thesis adviser, but that isn't enough for notability. The microbiome is also a seriously hot field right now, with a lot of journals thirsty for material linking it to every and any disease. Anyway, these are the citation metrics of all 36 of his coauthors and 31 of the authors of the 5 most recent papers citing him (who have more than 3 publications): Total cites: average: 3973, median: 570, Strandwitz: 304. Total publications: avg: 72, med: 33, S: 7. h-index: avg: 19, med: 12, S: 4. Highest citation: avg: 675, med: 109, S: 145. Highest first-author citation: avg: 179, med: 47, S: 145. These are of course skewed way down by the low threshold of 3+ papers, which will include a lot of grad students and techs. JoelleJay (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete a single first author publication in Nat Microbiol. is not enough for WP:Academics. --hroest 16:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. JoelleJay and hroest said it. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to warrant a pass of WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:27, 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 03:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyram Copeland[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Former mayor of Vidalia, Louisiana (population <5k), whose coverage is mostly limited to quotes about city projects. Note that numerous previous AfD discussions have established that membership in the Louisiana Political Museum and Hall of Fame in and of itself is not an indication of notability by Wikipedia's standards (see 1, 2, 3, 4). DanCherek (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd just like to note that even before I actually checked the edit history to see who had created this, I already (and correctly) knew who it was going to be. As always, every mayor of every town is not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because he existed, Louisiana does not get special dispensation to treat its mayors differently than mayors everywhere else (and abracadabra, now the rest of you know exactly who created this too!), and just verifying the mayor's existence through primary sources, raw tables of election results and one hit of local coverage in his own local media market is not enough to get a mayor over the bar that mayors actually have to clear. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like most articles written by this editor, the referencing is mostly simple voter/election information and other non-notability lending sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not Louisianapedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 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) 23:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan Voice[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a theatre and media project, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for organizations or media content. This article, as written, is a bit ambiguous and contradictory about what the topic actually is, but I've been able to locate a couple of primary sources which verify it as a theatre project for youth of the South Sudanese diaspora in Australia -- but the only sources present here are a self-published Eventbrite ticket listing and the streaming profile of a radio station in Juba which fails to mention this at all, let alone actually verifying the fact that's being cited to it. But these aren't reliable or notability-supporting sources, and even on a Google search I can't find anything better. As always, something like this is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- it has to be the subject of journalistic coverage in media to establish its significance, but I can't find any evidence of that. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A thorough search of the ProQuest database of Australian and NZ newspapers (broader and deeper than Google) revealed a single article, that probably doesn't meet IRS, but nonetheless I've added it to the page to give it the best chance of surviving. I think in honesty this page though is WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-Jungwon 14:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NWEB. WWGB (talk) 02:01, 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) 23:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xanadu Quantum Technologies[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Sources relating to routine funding ("a capital transaction, such as raised capital") do not contribute to notability, and nor do sources which are clearly not WP:INDEPENDENT. Coverage in a list of things to watch out for makes it way way TOOSOON. If and when it's notable, it will have independent reliably sourced coverage of its development(s). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-Jungwon 14:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the nomination has it right. Run-of-the-mill reporting is run-of-the-mill. XOR'easter (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the initial editor mentioned, the sources do not meet WP:INDEPENDENT. This company does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards yet. Redoryxx (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Xanadu is as notable as other companies involved in the quantum computing industry, such as IonQ or Rigetti. JamesHunton (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:33, 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. Whilst there may be routine coverage of individual matches, that should not be synthesised to suggest that there is coverage of the season in any significant manner as a whole. Match reporting occurs at all but the lowest level, what doesn't occur beyond the most notable levels is significant volumes of sourceable prose that discusses the season as a whole or at least in signficant parts. Fenix down (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Queen's Park F.C. season[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No evidence of notability; amateur club playing in a fourth tier semi-pro league. Stats article that does not meet WP:NSEASONS criteria for presumed notability and there is nothing remarkable enough about this season to suggest a WP:GNG pass either. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a sports almanac. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - amateur team playing in 4th tier of Scottish football, no evidence this season was notable or had any significant coverage. Giant Snowman 13:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a navbox with 11 other seasons similar to this one. Template:Queen's Park F.C. seasons. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1800s ones might well pass as Queen's Park were the dominant Scottish team at that point so sources may exist offline that would be able to flesh out those articles. The more recent ones, at first glance, appear to have the same issues but I haven't done a WP:BEFORE search on them yet. I thought about bundling them in one AfD but it's better to assess on individual merit. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article doesn't meet criteria, then surely the three season articles preceding it should be delted as well? –User:98AL 21:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Two of them were already PRODed and I've just PRODed the other one as well. I can't see anything notable about any of them. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought season articles for Scottish league clubs were okay, this is probably the same as any English league two clubs in information etc, so I feel this needs some breathing room. WP:NSEASON is biased and I would vote abstain as I don't really want to see these deleted. Govvy (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Too detailed for this level of football. Average home league attendance=418 Nigej (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The level of secondary coverage at this level isn't especially substantial, but it is consistent. It's harder to make a full keep vote because of that, but I think the nomination is badly flawed because it says there's "nothing remarkable enough about the season to suggest a WP:GNG pass." This has nothing to do with GNG! News sources such as the Glasgow Times and the BBC consistently reported on the season, and although the prose on this is light, it could definitely be expanded through WP:RS. Many seasons articles need to be deleted, but I'm not sure this is one of them. SportingFlyer T·C 12:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 13:47, 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. Sandstein 13:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of wine personalities[edit]

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

This list shouldn't exist as there is no unifying factor to the "personalities", the list has grown exceedingly long, holds both linguistic and cultural bias, and is far too subjective to hold any value. It should have never been created in the first place, but what should be done now is to remove it permanently so that it doesn't continue to be a list of some people well known in wine and some of questionable fame. Primecoordinator (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is absurd as the unifying factor is plain – the association with wine. The list has existed since 2006 and has had hundreds of editors and thousands of readers. If there are issues with particular entries then they are best addressed by editing the list or discussing them on its talk page. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and develop further, including possible rename. The corresponding category would seem to be Category:People associated with wine, which has specific subcategories for winemakers, wine critics, etc. (which is why this list was included in a few of those subcategories). I agree that "personalities" is unclear, but a rename and reorganization of this into subheaders or sublists would remedy that in a way that is consistent with the categorization system. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I get it that this article title is a little odd, maybe should be List of notable wine professionals or something, but I think it's a useful list. I definitely think it could be broken up into subsections to make it more useful -- vintners, sommeliers, critics, retailers, whatever. —valereee (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although not at all complete, it is a useful list compared with the more questionable List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards. For parts of this list, separate entries exist, such as Oenologists#Prominent oenologists, List of viticulturists, , , , , , . Maybe we could use the same section/subcategory titles for this list and make a selection of personalities already included in the mentioned categories.--BBCLCD (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I watchlisted this AFD because I find it interesting. WP:NLIST doesn't provide very much guidance. This particular article is very similar to Category:People associated with wine, except it also has one sentence descriptions and a couple of pictures. What do we do in circumstances like these? Judging from the keep consensus that is emerging, looks like we keep. I agree with valereee and others about the article name, I've started a renaming discussion at the article's talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Novem Linguae: WP:LISTCRIT does offer some relevant guidance: Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Perhaps the concerns from Primecoordinator, Postdlf, and valereee about lack of clarity in this list is that the article title does not provide clear well-defined selection criteria. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Proposal for selection: Persons referred to by this list should be primarily notable for their involvement in the wine sector, such as representatives of families owning well-known vineyards, oenologists, viticulturists, winemakers, wine merchants, sommeliers, professional wine critics and wine writers. If there are already lists for some of these subsectors elsewhere, links to such lists could replace some entries (example: Wine critics). Excluded should be persons owning vineyards, producing wines or writing about wines as hobbies apart from their main activities.--BBCLCD (talk) 09:09, 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 Goethe-Institut. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Kamogawa[edit]

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

Notability questionable, broader international coverage not evident, and sources appear to be promotional. Acousmana (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Goethe-Institut. ~~Delete~~. My source evaluation: #1 bild.de, RSN described it as a tabloid. #2 seems promotional, but could be legit, not sure. Original article at [19]. #3 government website, not secondary. #4 is an interview. #5 is just a list of residents, seems primary. #6 looks like a blog. #7 wordpress.com, self published. #2 is the only source that MIGHT pass GNG. Searching for "Villa Kamogawa", not seeing significant coverage in the first page of Google News results. I would say redirect it to whatever article contains info about "the three major German arts residency programs abroad", but I did some googling and Wikipedia searching, and I couldn't find the name of the program/government agency responsible. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Novem, there are not enough sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:Hi Hulatam – multiple independent and reliable sources added to article. Pls check. Planetdust (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: sources found in the article: Bild Zeitung, Focus (German magazine), Deutschlandfunk Kultur, Deutsche Welle – respectively "the best-selling European newspaper and has the sixteenth-largest circulation worldwide", "one of the 3 most widely circulated German weeklies", the cultural channel of "Deutschlandradio, a set of national radio stations" and "a German public state-owned international broadcaster [...] available in 30 languages" (quotes from their WP articles). Broad coverage in German broad media. Further features exist, including in Die Zeit & Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (two more national broadsheets) + some Japanese sites (#7 – that doesn't appear to be wordpress/self-published, Novem Linguae?) which I'm not fit to evaluate. The pieces in Focus, Bild, Deutschlandfunk & DW qualify this as one of 3 or 4 major German residencies abroad (Kulturakademie Tarabya in Istanbul being the 4th, added recently).

Question: were does the proposed criterion of "broad international coverage" (see Acousmana, above) come from? I couldn't find it in WP:ORGCRITE. It seems unlikely that subjects of predominantly national / binational interest necessarily require broad global coverage to establish notability. Compare French & American Academy in Rome for current state of sourcing for other notable artist residencies. The former article is poorly sourced, the latter has no international coverage at all.--Planetdust (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Planetdust, hello friend. The source numbers changed since I did my evaluation. Here's what the article looked like when I evaluated the sources. [20] Bild and WordPress.com are both red at WP:RSPSOURCES. My evaluation of the two new sources is: [21] gives me an error 404, and [22] is not significant coverage (mentions Kamogawa zero times, Goethe one time). If I am misunderstanding something, I am happy to be convinced. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Hi Novem Linguae, you are right. The DW link had an error – fixed: [23] Also, D.Dörrie is mentioned on page 3 there – I couldn't find a way to link to individual pages within the article. But it is a feature about those 4 "major" German residencies. The Zeit Feature does not mention the name Kamogawa indeed. Since the full name of the residency is Goethe Institut Villa Kamogawa, it is referred to as Goethe fellowship in the article. Maybe the article should be renamed to reflect the full correct name (see [24]). The 4 residencies are run by different organizations.

The Zeit piece is not a source relevant to the notability of the institution itself (mention in passing) – only a source for the fellowship status of the artist mentioned. I believe the other press features I mentioned in my previous comment are reliable and independent sources, leading at the German national or European level. Viewing Bild, "Europe's biggest newspaper" (circulation), as unfit to be considered in matters of notability might be a bit of a stretch. What do you think? Planetdust (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Planetdust, hello friend. Thanks for the detailed response and the updated DW link. 1) The DW article isn't bad. I think that would possibly qualify as WP:SIGCOV for an article on "German artist residences abroad" or something like that. But I think it only has a paragraph on Villa Kamogawa, so in my opinion it is not SIGCOV for this article. 2) Sorry, I can't budge on Bild being an unreliable source. To get added to WP:RSPSOURCES as red/generally unreliable means that it has been discussed thoroughly and multiple times at the reliable sources noticeboard. 3) Today I found the related articles Goethe-Institut and List of Goethe-Institut locations. At this point I am thinking maybe we should redirect Villa Kamogawa to Goethe-Institut. Also, Villa Kamogawa is only one paragraph... if it fits, we could possibly just move that paragraph into one of the two articles mentioned. Thoughts? Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Novem Linguae Thanks for the input! I wasn't aware of WP:RSPSOURCES. The discussion around Bild's reliability assessment [25] does not look balanced or neutral to me, but I will not embark on an evaluation of that. DW devotes one individual section of a feature, also singling out those 4 residencies (there are more, non-major). The most in-depth coverage here probably is the Deutschlandfunk feature. I agree that redirection to Goethe Institut, with a subsection on this residency program, might generally be feasible. Personally I don't see why this is justified since most similar residencies do have individual articles, similarly badly sourced – compare Villa Aurora, Massimo, French & American Academy in Rome etc. Looking at the German article [26], I guess there's potential for expansion, thus the present brevity might not reflect the full significance of the subject. On the other hand it's a newer institution than, say, Villa Aurora, so there's less history. Planetdust (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to take up too much of the conversation here, so I have posted a reply on the talk page. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am convinced by Novem's analysis of the sources, as being either primary or promotional, which violate Wikipedia's guidelines for organizations. The additional sources that Planetdust mentioned above are mostly brief mentions of the organization in stories or promotions of other connected things, and they only prove existence and not notability. I can find nothing else that satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has been overhauled with multiple reliable independent sources added, several of those cover the institution itself in depth. Novem Linguae and I have different opinions on the reliability of Bild, particularly on non-political or non-biographical topics such as artist residency institutions. But even without that source, I still believe notability is given – see refs 3, 4 & 5 in particular. The article might need expansion, but I don't see any grounds for deletion. The institution is also distinct enough of the Goethe Institut organization and its regular locations, thus I believe Keep is more appropriate than Redirect. Planetdust (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The German sources that are openly accessible provide marginally significant coverage. Some of the German sources are firewalled; they either improve the coverage or don't make any difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author of the article isn't helping by being hostile, and is being hostile, but this is a content dispute about whether to keep an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Goethe-Institut, per Novem Linguae, and introduction of an "artist residencies" section there would seem appropriate. Acousmana (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:VERIFY and WP:ORGDEPTH. This is the English language encyclopedia yet all of the sourcing is in German or Japanese. Verifiability is cumbersome at best. Those who don't read these languages have to run the citations through machine translations. While these translations can sometimes be amusing at best they only give the reader a general sense of the subject matter. I ran "Villa Kanogawa" through a search engine only came up with hits from booking sites. If the supporting citations are only in German or Japanese that suggests the subject lacks broad geographic coverage. In a nutshell, it fails WP:GNG based on lack of verifiability and significant coverage. Blue Riband► 06:30, 7 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 13:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riswan Ali E K[edit]

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

Largely unverifiable. Not a complete hoax, I think, but hugely exaggerated (or just very hard to verify?). I searched both under "Riswan Ali E K" and "Riswan Ali Edakkavil", but found very few results, and none from reliable independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - largely unverifiable; according to the article, has only played regional level in India and the third tier of UAE so fails WP:NFOOTBALL comprehensively. Lacks coverage in actual reliable sources so I can't see WP:GNG being met either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete. I have edited the page. Please check. Suhail Azwa (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTBALL. Hulatam (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to pass WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 15:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Padavalam🌂 ► 15:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sohel Islam[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 09:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This CricBuzz article and reprints of it were all I was able to find for coverage. His name is in the title, but the article doesn't really go into much depth about him as a person, it's probably not significant coverage. Bowling and coaches don't have any WP:NSPORT criteria that could make this an easy keep, three WP:GNG sources are needed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that I know that spin bowling is cricket (and not bowling), I can evaluate the correct SNG. Per Rugbyfan22, has played at the highest level (List A, first-class). Keep. Sorry for the confusion :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he passes on both WP:GNG as a coach, as there are a raft of articles about him on pretty much every cricket website covering Bangladeshi cricket; but irrespective of that, after 13 first class matches he's a clear and easy pass on the basis of WP:CRIN criteria. I'm shocked that this article could be proposed for deletion. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- DevaCat1, thanks for your comment. I'm not too familiar with cricket. Could you link to a couple of the articles you mention, and also mention which bullet point of WP:CRIN he meets and why? I'm happy to change my vote if convinced. Thank you for your time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Novem Linguae hopefully the revised version of the article meets your expectations. There are now multiple external links to various websites; I could go to more, but don't want to overload the article with external references. I've also added a box of stats. My view is that he would qualify under WP:GNG as a coach, but also as WP:CRIN as a player, by virtue of having played first class cricket and List A cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Played 13 first-class and 3 list-A matches in Bangladesh for the most successful side in the Bangladesh cricket league passing him for WP:CRIN. Also coached the Bangladesh national side as a spin bowling coach so passes that way as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Comfortably meets NCRIC, and more importantly there is more than enough significant coverage to meet GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:50, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvis Johnson (comedian)[edit]

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

This is just a promotional BLP. Fails WP:ENT, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. RationalPuff (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Google News search brings back lots of hits, some of which I've already used to expand the article. YouTube has been around long enough that individual broadcasters can achieve independent notability through coverage in multiple respected sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources added by Ritchie333. Passes WP:SIGCOV. --Ashley yoursmile! 14:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's the actual Forbes 30 under 30 profile on him. There's plenty of sources so he looks good and notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Going to sit this one out for a bit and see what people find. Leaning keep. Sources #3 and #4 appear to be GNG passing. [27][28] One more good source should solidify things. That Forbes profile is just 1 paragraph, so probably not SIGCOV. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY from the work done by Ritchie333. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above comments on SIGCOV. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:49, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Johanningmeier[edit]

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

Current sources doesn't meet WP:GNG SpareSeiko (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable since Google gave me several notable sourceCommanderWaterford (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)s in a quick search, just needed to be added.[reply]
Keep I added information from notable sources (Variety, Deadline, Playbill) as well as full filmography to improve content Buzzers1 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the article's sources, 1 and 2 are trivial, 3 is IMDb 4 is a self-published source from Phillip Silverstone, whose article was deleted as "not notable" - not considered a subject-matter expert. 5 quotes her, but does not establish any significant coverage. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider validity of sources highlighted. The keep !votes are not compelling.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR; I added a Chicago Sun-Times and a ReelChicago review for her recent film, and a Hollywood Reporter review of a previous film, as well as a Getty Images reference indicating she was a guest star on a television show that is noted in other press as part of her career (e.g. Chicago Tribune), so it looks like Johanningmeier has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows," and has just recently cleared this criteria with her latest film. I also think the filmography chart is a great addition but it could be split into films and television shows to make her acting career more clear. Beccaynr (talk) 01:52, 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 speedy delete by an Admin per WP:G5. (non-admin closure). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aliali[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NMUSICIAN Chompy Ace 09:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 09:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 09:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 09:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 09:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps an ECP salt is warranted - complete fail of MUSICBIO and NMUSICIAN per nom, tendentiously resubmitted to AfC and rejected multiple times despite feedback to the submitters. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Draft:Alishamraan. Pahunkat (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and salt; absolutely no reliable references at all; five declines and five rejections at AfC has to be some sort of Wikipedia record! It's a clear illustration of the lack of notability but also the persistence of Ali Shamran in absolutely not giving up on using Wikipedia as a platform for self-promotion Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete pure spam. RationalPuff (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to prevent recreation. Spam page. --Ashley yoursmile! 14:29, 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. Sandstein 13:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Burale Hassan[edit]

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

BLP(?) article does not meet GNG, BASIC or ANYBIO. I couldn't find anything in the source listed or in search for either of the names in the article. There is very little information in the article to do any research. This might be a BLP from the cats, but the past tense in the article casts doubt on this (maybe they are simply no long sub clan chief). Either way there is no SIGCOV covering the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 09:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 09:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 09:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find sources to show enough evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cubinder[edit]

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

Not notable; also, "cubinder" is a neologism.

Sources considered: websites such as http://hi.gher.space/; a self-published book (McMullen, Chris (2008). *The Visual Guide To Extra Dimensions.* CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.); a 2018 PhD thesis in geography; a paper from "the 3rd International Conference on Frontiers of Intelligent Computing: Theory and Applications" (2014) purporting to use this and other 4-dimensional geometric figures to model the human thorax. None of these are reliable sources, in my view. I am unaware of any mainstream mathematics source addressing the topic significantly or using the term "cubinder". Adumbrativus (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for math words you made up one day. XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no mathematical content in this article and the term is not one i have seen used anywhere else ; unless the relevance to other fields can be established in a serious way (which i don't think the current references do, irregardless of their not being mentioned in the body of the article) I see no reason to keep the page. jraimbau (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Forming a 4d shape as the Cartesian product of a square and circle is a reasonable thing to do but I'm not aware of reliable in-depth coverage for this topic and the article doesn't provide anything convincing. As for the name of the article, it appears not to exist anywhere in the mathematics research literature (zero hits on both MathSciNet and zbMATH) so if we are to have an article on this shape, it also needs a better non-neologism name. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't have much to add, except to say that I agree with the assessments above, and everything points to deletion being the right course of action. Ebony Jackson (talk) 04:13, 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. Sandstein 13:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiyas Kareem[edit]

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

Subject clearly fails. WP:NACTOR. Does not have notable roles in any movies. Other than being a participant of a reality show and in some non notable competitions, there is nothing notable to have an independent article as of now. I also doubt the creator of the article has COI with the subject. Its still unclear whether the subject is having a notable role in Marakkar: Arabikadalinte Simham. This might also be a case of WP:TOOSOON Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR and a case of WP:TOOSOON. As mentioned by the nominator the creator appear to have a conflict of interested and socking using IP addresses. GSS ^💬 14:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR. WikiShakeshere (talk) 03:59, 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 redirect to Church of Christ With the Elijah Message. Sandstein 13:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

W. A. Draves[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable religious leader. The refs given are either autobiographical or associated with his church, and apart from more stuff from his church and this blog post which isn't even SIGCOV of Draves, I couldn't find anything else. No substantive arguments were made at the 2004 VfD either. schetm (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with option to merge to Church of Christ with the Elijah Message. The article contains no independent references, and my searching isn't finding anything better. The article for the church would be a more appropriate place to briefly discuss him, and it indeed already has some information about him. I would redirect this article there, and any additional information can be merged out of the history if necessary. (In my humble opinion, there isn't too much worth saving here.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, with option to merge from the page history if reliable sources can be found, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This appears to be about the leader of a splinter from a splinter of the LDS movement. I do not normally comment on LDS issues. The splinter appears to be a denomination which once had a membership of 12500 (no recent data). Peterkingiron (talk) 12:36, 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. Sandstein 13:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Del Vaughn[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG - one of four people in a helicopter that crashed in the aftermath of Hurricane Agnes. Coverage of the crash mostly only mentions his name and occupation, and he's already briefly mentioned in the Hurricane Agnes article. He did standard journalism work during his lifetime, nothing that really adds to an argument for notability. DanCherek (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a presumptive copyright violation; the only major contributor is serial banned copyright violator Billy Hathorn. MER-C 16:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 13:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ice[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This theologian might have a lot of hits on Google and speak at Bible conferences, but I don't think his academic achievements reach WP:PROF standards. The previous AfD is eye-opening in how differently AFDs were decided in 2006. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing anything that would suggest Ice meets GNG, just brief mentions/quotes (The Atlantic, Beliefnet). The closest he gets to meeting WP:NACADEMIC would be having a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" (pre-tribulation rapture), but independent reliable sources demonstrating that don't seem to exist. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 11:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although there is absolutely no sign of WP:NPROF, it looks like there are now plenty of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, even on what looks to me like a fringe topic. I cut down the CV-like list of books of uncertain impact to the reviewed ones, and otherwise edited towards MOS. Genericusername57 previously did the harder work of finding reviews. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep His first book (coauthored with H. Wayne House) had significant impact; according to Neuhaus[29], it was the "first book-length critique" of Christian reconstructionism, and "warmly endorsed by leading Evangelicals". I don't think that his writing on pre-tribulationism has seen the same response (though this isn't an area I'm particularly familiar with); but there are probably enough book reviews overall to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Cheers, gnu 57 19:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as multiple reliable sources book reviews references have been added that show a pass of WP:NAUTHOR in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not think there are any serious BLP issues: there are some unverified items, but none likely to be libelous. He is clearly an academic and has written several books, which have been reviewed in specialist journals. His theological views may differ from mine, but they are probably widely held ones among evangelicals, so that the views are not FRINGE ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- His works have garnered significant critical attention, reviews published in several independent journals. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. --Ashley yoursmile! 08:20, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Bend, California[edit]

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

This is a rare case with no Durham entry, but the reason for that appears to be that the label is for a literal bend in the old route of Kaiser Pass Road. At least, that is what it looks like on the topos. GHits turn up nothing relevant. Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It actually is in Durham, but just citing the same topo the gnis uses, calling it a locality. Obviously not a community here (bottom center), and the level of incompetence and negligence remains staggering. Reywas92^Talk 07:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Agree with Reywas92, not enough to be included on Wikipedia. Hulatam (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not a community. Hog Farm _Talk 17:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What other national government mapping agency creates thousands of settlements out of thin air? ----Pontificalibus 12:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As seen in topographic maps, it is clearly not a community. Instead, it is a literal bend in the road. Nothing in JSTOR or Internet Archive. Paul H. (talk) 19:49, 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 delete. There's consensus to remove the article. There's no discussion about the proposed redirect to New Zealand's Got Talent (series 2), where she is mentioned. It's up to editors to consider whether such a redirect would be appropriate in the light of this discussion. Sandstein 13:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Hillel[edit]

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

Subject has requested deletion. She is relatively unknown, and a non-public figure. I am personally in touch with the subject, and assert that she seeks deletion. Subject fails to meet notability criteria for musicians. Coverage subject received was trivial. Subject was a minor child star, and now, as an adult, seeks to remove herself from the spotlight Rklahn (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salted redirect to New Zealand's Got Talent (series 2) Unfortunately we can't remove the subject's entire presence off from here, so a redirect here will probably work, although if everyone else supports a full salt, I'm all for it. It's clear from the above they're ready to move on from what they were forced into as a child (and I forsee this happening in the next few years as more ...Got Talent and other reality show kids with no choice are ready to move onto quieter lives, so frankly there should be a soild opt-out policy being built out for these types of cases), and I hope they have a very fruitful adulthood whatever they do. Most of the sources in the article are insular NZTV NZGT show, WP:YOUTUBE, directory, or chart spam links anyways. Nate • (chatter) 02:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How does a subject go about proving they are who they say they are and that they want their article deleted? There was first an Australian IP address that asked for this New Zealand citizen and now Rklahn says they are in talks with the subject. It probably would be easier for the subject to contact Wikipedia in some way to prove who they are. As for whether they are notable, I would vote Keep since the article has reliable sources passing WP:GNG and their album charted on national charts thus passing WP:NMUSIC. Aspects (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a subject should have to definitively prove that they are who they say they are. Like an editor, we should assume good faith. There is no existing process for a subject to contact Wikipedia in order to prove who they are, and to make Jessie go through one would be ex post facto. To that point, this is the fourth attempt by Jessie to get this page deleted: Speedy delete, a question in the teahouse, proposed deletion, and now here. Also, and this is important, Jessie should not have to go public to get this page deleted. Privacy is a human right, and one she did not surrender as an adult.

I get that your position is that she is notable because of the reliable sources. I disagree, but suggest thats not the test here. WP:BIODEL speaks to this when it says that biographical articles of relatively unknown non-public figures should be deleted where the subject requests it. We can discuss further the "has the subject requested it" bit, but, again, assume good faith and Im convinced Im talking to Jessie. To the IP geolocation issue, I would say this: It should not be surprising to find someone believed to be from New Zealand in Australia. In fact, it's pretty common.

And if you still believe that policy and guidelines point to Keep, I would respond with this. Ignore all rules and common sense point to deletion. It makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, and makes Jessie's life better.

Thank you very much for your question. Both you and Nate raise an important point. It should be far clearer how people in Jessie's situation can get articles they are the subject of deleted. That being said, she and I are working within the process we have, and I urge Delete. Rklahn (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was a process for this situation, but I could not find it when I searched. There should be a process where they could e-mail someone at Wikipedia, the same way OTRS issues are handled at WikiCommons. Now that I thought about that there is something at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard, for Issues with an article about you or your organization to e-mail [email protected]. Aspects (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried hard to find something like this when I first got involved, and did not find it. There is currently an 11 day backlog, so I think we will take our chances here first. There really should be a main page link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help, this should be much easier to find (Im going to Talk:Main Page next). Nate mentioned this in his comment, and I agree. The nature of ...Got Talent and other reality shows featuring children is going to lead to more of this over time. Thanks for pointing the noticeboard out. Rklahn (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The subject's opinions on this page isn't relevant. The subject of article shouldn't influence or edit the page about themselves. (See WP:COI) The reality is if you are in the public eye, then people will write and publish about you -- and in the internet era, it is much more permanent than before.

I also don't believe this page is anything to be ashamed of and I don't believe it will draw any extra attention to Hillel. If Hillel is out of the public eye, then most people won't search for her and will soon forget about her. Anyone who knows her outside of music and finds this won't think any worse of her.

But this page does, in my view, fail to prove notability. The references are mostly YouTube videos and links to songs. If the article was to prove its notability, it would need to be primarily news articles. I believe it fails WP:GNG and should be redirected to New Zealand's Got Talent (series 2). Nexus000 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken, but..... Where WP:COI suggests the subject should not influence the article, WP:BIODEL directly addresses this scenario.

Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no clear consensus to keep may be closed as delete.

WP:COI is guideline, WP:BIODEL is policy, and should take precedence.

Had the subject chosen, as an adult, to enter the public eye, I would be less sympathetic to her plight. But thats not what happened here. Someone, an adult responsible to her, entered her into a contest. She did well enough to become notable in the moment, enough so that an article was written. Years later, as an adult, she would like it taken down. Her motivations seem unimportant. It fits into WP:BIODEL and should come down. Even if one does not accept that logic, its common sense to reach delete, and WP:UCS

as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.

Rklahn (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need to respect the rights of individuals, and not force permanent article status on people who as adults choose not to follow up on the fairly limited coverage they got as a child.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree. I actually think from among the points to delete, this is by far the most important, which is why Im making a 5th pillar - Ignore all rules argument above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklahn (talk • contribs) 23:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've changed my position from redirect to delete. I agree with User:John Pack Lambert. Nexus000 (talk) 12:38, 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 13:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nitoo Das[edit]

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

One line article lacking sources - tagged since 2013. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. External links only to subject's publications, so the article is essentially WP:PROMO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 00:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom Padavalam🌂 ► 15:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked this individual up and there appears to be some references about her. I really don't think there's enough to get WP:GNG, but I would encourage further digging for someone that has more motivation than me to look. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:49, 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 13:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Def Pen[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG. Heartfox (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:NMEDIA either. The site has the rare interview with a celebrity, but the mentions of Def Pen in reliable sources are almost exclusively brief mentions of tweets made by their Twitter accounts. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this online magazine in depth. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 11:10, 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.

^ Hemmerling, Gerhard. "The rule-based language XL and the modelling environment GroIMP illustrated with simulated tree competition". Functional Plant Biology: 9, 10 – via researchgate.

[1] Hemmerling, Gerhard. "The rule-based language XL and the modelling environment GroIMP illustrated with simulated tree competition". Functional Plant Biology: 9, 10 – via researchgate.

[1]