Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 27 March 01 >

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. Daniel (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie Lacks[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I don't understand how anyone could possibly see this person as notable. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No sources about her, as opposed to her mother Henrietta Lacks. I doubt her family's allegations about her hospital (mis)treatment are worth mentioning, but they could be added to her mother's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Zero sources found and no notability shown. I agree with nom. Fails WP:GNG
  • Delete. Completely fails GNG. —Kbabej (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Current sources doesn't passes WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --Devokewater 18:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Unfortunately, Elsie lacks notability or the ability to pass GNG. The info relevant to her mother could be included on her mother's Wiki page. ser! (chat to me). 23:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The information from this page is already included in the Biography section of her mother's page, Henrietta Lacks. Not seeing any reason to keep this as a separate page. Redoryxx (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Crossing, California[edit]

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

Not clear why this is a named spot, as there has never been much of anything there. Not to be confused with the camp up near Tahoe, but after that, not getting much in the way of hits, and nothing informative. Mangoe (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment was a resort with cabins, alongside the resort of Miramonte, California immediately adjacent to it ([1], [2]). Plenty in newspapers.com if you search these two together, but my subscription broke. Perhaps a merge? ----Pontificalibus 16:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looked through JSTOR, Goggle Books, Google Scholar, Internet Archives, and so forth. Found nothing that would indicate that this item is anything but a run-of-the-mill resort that is lacking in any historic or other significance. Found nothing worth merging. Paul H. (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lacking WP:SIGCOV as a named community. It appears to be just a USGS location name that according to them is "...not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name." Blue Riband► 13:40, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Film dubbing in Ukrainian[edit]

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

Do they not dub into nearly every language? This article seems completely pointless and doesn't even really explain anything, it just restates the title. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is part of [Cultural Diplomacy Month/List]; as a page on the Ukrainian-language wiki which is to be translated into different languages. (Moondragon21 (User talk:Moondragon21) 22:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • possible keep/merge There are actually some political implications here. More likely this ought to be merged into a general article on film in Ukraine. Mangoe (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Which of the deletion criteria is the reason to delete? They make movies in every language, yet we have articles like Film in Kansas City, so there is no theoretical reason to delete this based on the scope of the subject. The Ukrainian-language version of this article, w:uk:Дублювання українською, has over 5,500 words in the main text and 168 reference, so there is no dearth of subject matter to be added to this stub. —Michael Z. 19:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator, I would like to close this discussion. Not sure how exactly. When I encountered this article, it was one sentence and seemed completely pointless, but has now been expanded and, as others have kindly pointed out, has more info that can be added. Thank you all for your input. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 20:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can just close it as per WP:CLOSEAFD. (I would, but can’t since I voted.) Thanks. —Michael Z. 21:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Eat Dog (2001 film)[edit]

Dog Eat Dog (2001 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. No critic reviews or other significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I should have been able to find those. I've found this one, too. It does seem to me, however, that these reviews are not quite the full-length reviews by nationally known critics that WP:NFILM requires, nor does the film meet any of NFILM's other criteria. Lennart97 (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the definition of a nationally known critic as agreed by the Wiki Project Film is that the critic writes for a national publication of a sizeable circulation so the BBC certainly qualifies and the critic Jamie Russell is termed at Rotten Tomatoes as a top critic. TimeOut is also a major publication but the review is on the short side so it's a weak keep imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough coverage and notable enough cast for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 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) 11:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Amendment[edit]

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

Few verifiable sources to back up a law of uncertain notability White 720 (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:17, 21 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) 17:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Cupper52Discuss! 17:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I have found several scholarly articles that mention the Bradley Amendment, although I do not have access to read most of them. I have introduced a "Criticism" section with some of these articles and I have cited a book in the "History" section. I continue to seek consensus on whether the article should be deleted. White 720 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the law itself wasn't that notable, but the impact and criticism are. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 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) 19:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has received WP:GNG-worthy coverage. BD2412 T 22:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has sufficient coverage. Thanks to the nom for the edits they made after nominating, which strengthened the article considerably. Incidentally, there's a good CRS report at [3] that may be helpful in expanding this. I've added a {{refideas}} template with it. TJRC (talk) 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 no consensus. There is no consensus regarding the regional-ness (?) of one of the key sources, and also no consensus regarding the deletion of the article based off this. If the NCORP discussion reaches a clear resolution that the LE is not an appropriate source for demonstrating notability, this close is obviously not prejudicing a re-nomination. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glenvale Transport[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Almost the whole thing is unsourced and there is no sourcing to verify 99% of it SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. The sources listed e.g. Commercial Motor have many articles covering transport companies, nearly all of these companies are usually non-notable. Likewise, local newspapers have articles covering local businesses, again these businesses are usually non-notable. Having the local newspaper or trade magazine mentioning a business does not make that business notable. --Devokewater 18:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Aside from this article being about a major defunct public transportation company of a major English city, the Commercial Motor and The Herald sources present in the article alone demonstrate the company's notability. About the verifiability issue, the unsourced statement present in the article can probably all be checked and sourced by someone with access to the archives of the Liverpool Echo. Place the {{fact}} tag and move on, AfD is not cleanup. Mottezen (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mottezen: Nope. Those sources have nothing to do with Glenvale, and only serve notability of other companies that existed before them. SK2242 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Far from having "nothing to do with with Glanvale", the previous companies' notability enhances the notability of the company who acquired, consolidated and expanded the same service. See below for sources concerning this service from 2001 to 2005 under the name "Glenvale Transport". Mottezen (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, notability is not inherited. SK2242 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:SK2242, you're arguing strictly on the letter of the policies, but are not honoring them in spirit. WP:NCORP is so stringent because of the need to counter PR pages and advertisement. This page does not have this issue, as the company is defunct. Read the article closer and you'll find the article was split from the main Stagecoach Merseyside article. Therefore, it is not really about the corporation, but instead tells the story of the corporate consolidation in the public transit sector of Liverpool following from its privatisation in the 1980s to 2005.
This former topic is notable; when you search "Glenvale Transport" in google books, you get sources that delve exclusively on this topic, mentioning the company only in passing. As such, simply renaming and rescoping this article to History of Stagecoach Group or History of public transit privatisation in Liverpool is a surefire way to prevent all the loss of content you're advocating for. Meeting WP:NCORP wouldn't be an issue under such title. Mottezen (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost any company article has to meet NCORP, whether it is active or defunct. You can make a seperate article on that subject if you want. SK2242 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Source on this company can be found on the Liberpool Echo website, and searching for its name in its archive yields a lot of hits [4]. Keep in mind that these are likely not all the articles published by the newspaper on this company, as newspapers certainly did not publish all on their content on their website at the time. Regardless, I managed to find these three sources [5] [6] [7] giving WP:SIGCOV to this topic and added them to this article. Mottezen (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All fails WP:AUD a significant component of NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed the Commercial Motor + local newspapers fails WP:AUD Devokewater 18:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only national source I found on google is this one [8]. While it might look like it has only two sentence, it's exclusively on-topic, and the layout suggests a video was present on the page. It was likely presenting a news story on its demise. This video is no more accessible since Flash player was discontinued. WP:AUD states that "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary", that's the one Mottezen (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the national source has to be SIGCOV like the others as mentioned in AUD, but you appear not to have quoted that part. SK2242 (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The national source I quote does meet SIGCOV. Mottezen (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2 sentences? And even if it did it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. "the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" is listed as trivial coverage. SK2242 (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It meets SIGCOV because of the video. Coverage about a bus company that held 30% of the market in the UK's 5th metropolitan area is NOT trivial. Mottezen (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I just said NCORP specifically says, coverage on business sales is trivial coverage. The fact that there’s a video doesn’t really matter if they couldn’t/wouldn’t write more than 2 sentences about it. SK2242 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Liverpool Echo does not fail WP:AUD. It's a regional newspaper List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom#Newspapers_in_England. Mottezen (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a list of regional newspapers, as evidenced by the fact the Liverpool Echo covers Liverpool and not the North West, and other newspapers on there are obviously AUD fails too. SK2242 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Liverpool Echo covers [just] Liverpool Fails verification
other newspapers on there are obviously AUD fails Why? AUD doesn't define what a regional newspaper is. So what if they cover only parts of a national subdivision?
non-wiki source for list of Regional Daily Newspapers in the UK. The Liverpool Echo is on there. Mottezen (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regional means covering a region or province. Example = The Yorkshire Post. Covers the region of Yorkshire which is made up of several counties. A publication covering one county isn’t regional. SK2242 (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see that in WP policy? Mottezen (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, The Liverpool Echo could also be used in your example. It covers the Liverpool City Region, which is made up of Merseyside county and parts of a few others; the historic county of Lancashire and Cheshire. Mottezen (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Today, Merseyside is a single county. Its border history is irrelevant. The Liverpool Echo is local, not regional. On policy, is that off wiki article you quoted WP policy either? Also see this discussion. SK2242 (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Liverpool City Region, it has ‘region’ in the name covers more than just Merseyside county. Mottezen (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is that off wiki article you quoted WP policy? Wikipedia relies on off-wiki reliable sources over user-generated content. The best way to show that the Liverpool Echo counts as a regional newspaper is to show that it's considered a "regional newspaper" per RS. For the Liverpool Echo, it definitely is. It's even winning Regional Press awards [9]. Mottezen (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With your first sentence you are basically saying that all our policies and guidelines are useless because they are user generated. Since you clearly won’t change your mind I’ve started a discussion on NCORP talk. SK2242 (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what I meant, I was just referring the the poorly-attended discussion you linked. Mottezen (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while it would benefit from a major cleanup, this company (when active) was a significant operator in the Liverpool and wider Merseyside region (itself not a small area) and the 2nd largest operator at the time. It was not a bit-player or a small fish in a big pond, despite not being in existence for that long. The company went defunct 15-16 years ago which makes online sources scarcer. I split it off from its successor Stagecoach Merseyside in 2008 so I can't account for much of the content. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Otherwise its a merge back into Stagecoach Merseyside which would not be beneficial.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources are suitable, "regional" has a meaning in the context of newspapers that isn't the based on NUTS 1 regions, and Commercial Motor isn't "media of limited interest and circulation". Peter James (talk) 20:26, 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) 11:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Akubuine[edit]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to a single late substitute appearance in an allegedly 'fully professional league' four 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) 15:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets NFOOTBALL and is a young player with ongoing career. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 16:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - according to our fully-professional leagues page, this league was professional at this moment in time. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't believe Rushden & Diamonds are in the 7th tier now. I had them down as being in League Two or something... This player has only played 8 minutes of professional football according to Soccerbase - the one minute against Stenhousemuir doesn't count as Stenhousemuir were playing below professional level that season. I can't find any coverage on him but, as GS says, he is still young so he could build on his appearances, at least in theory. Spiderone</spa Itn>(Talk to Spider) 17:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They went bankrupt about a decade ago. Full on demolished the stadium and everything now. Eopsid (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He currently plays for a non league team and is non notable Eopsid (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. Akubuine barely passes WP:NFOOTBALL and has since played for teams in the fifth/sixth tier in Scotland and seventh tier in England. His article can be deleted now instead of having someone stumble across it in 2031 and AFDing it. Dougal18 (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle, passes NFOOTY and GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The player passes NFOOTY by the narrowest of margins, a brief appearance in one game nearly four years ago. Since then he has played only in either the fifth teir in Scotland or the seventh teir in england. The idea that he has some kind of ongoing career where he will suddenly bounce back to full professionalism and therefore some form of notability is essentially nil to the point of being a laughable suggestion.

Furthermore there is absolutely no in depth coverage of the player in any source of note and nor, given the level of his achievement, would one expect there to be.

To be honest I was tempted simply to close this as delete given the weakness of the keep votes but I suppose it doesn't harm to extend by another week given three is not an overriding opinion one way orcthe other, to see if sources showing GNG can be shown.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - passing WP:NFOOTY barely on its own does not mandate that we have an article on this chap if there is little chance he will return to fully-professional playing. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 18:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - the player is still in his early twenties but, given that he only passes the SNG by 8 mins and has zero coverage and given that the chance of him playing at professional level again is so incredibly low, I would have to lean towards deletion being the more reasonable outcome here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:10, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Chapman[edit]

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

This page was created by me and is about me. I would like to delete it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzysmumkelly (talk • contribs) 07:44, February 28, 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - Completing nomination on behalf of the editor who AfD-tagged the article, who claims to be the subject and the article creator under a different account name. Above text is copied from their edit summary. Normal procedure tends to be to respect the wishes of article subjects of borderline notability in these matters, but regardless of whether they are who they say they are, provided sources fall short of meeting WP:GNG and I found nothing better at a first pass. (Courtesy ping to Izzysmumkelly.) --Finngall talk 18:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 18:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 18:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Paliwal[edit]

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

Looks like a resume, unambiguous advertisement of the subject. Previously deleted 3 times. DMySon 18:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon 18:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. DMySon 18:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon 18:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt A search for ""Santosh Paliwal" cartoonist" does not produce any RS. GNG fail. Possibly (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. No reliable sources found. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Fails WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete doesn’t meet basic, fails gng as well.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per nom. New Reliable Sources added and I found it notable. Uobito (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2021 (UT
  • "Keep Per nom"? You would like to keep the article because it is a resume/advert? Also as this account has been created just to contest this AfD, what is your relationship with the article? SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the creator of this Article. I have lost the access to the main account for that reason I have made a new account. After seeing the delete discussion I added the resources using which I made this article and I would like to bring this to everyone's notice that This article was by no means made for someone's prommotion or as a resume, it was made using the data available on the net as I thought this was worth writing the article. So i would really like you all to consider keeping this article. Uobito (talk) 15:04, 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) 11:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Carson[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an officeholder at the county level of government, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, people at this level of government are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- local officeholders have to pass a much higher burden of notability than just being technically verifiable, such as by writing and properly sourcing some genuine substance about their political significance to demonstrate why they should be seen as significantly more notable than the norm for this level of office. But this is effectively written like a résumé, says nothing about him that would credibly support treating him like a special case of greater notability than most other county councillors, and isn't properly referenced: three of the five footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, one is a news article that tangentially verifies a stray fact without actually mentioning Keith Carson at all in conjunction with it, and the fifth is a dead link that can't even be recovered via the Wayback Machine to determine whether it did or didn't say anything noteworthy about Keith Carson either. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to contain much more substance, and much better sourcing, than this. (Note also that the existence of this article was recently raised in another current AFD discussion as a WP:WAX argument for why a similarly bad article about one of his colleagues had to be kept.) Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator. Fails WP:NPOL and I could find no significant coverage in independent sources that showed why this person would be an exception. - 20:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 00:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to meeting the inclusion criteria for politiicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebio High School[edit]

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

Same as the others, the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. The single source in the article is a one line entry from a government database. This is a normal school, looks like a nice one, but not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk  17:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  17:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  17:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what I can find the only things out there about this school are an article about a student from the school who got shot and a brief mention of it in a survey. Neither address the school directly or in-depth though. So it clearly fails the notability guidelines as a topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - falling short on WP:ORGCRIT; my searches have found that the school uses social media (which almost every school does these days), they have a couple of Wordpress sites, they have a passing mention in the news but little else. Searching Mataas na Paaralan ng Eusebio also yielded zero useful coverage. Schools are no longer presumed notable simply by existing and need to meet our notability criteria for organisations and I can see no evidence that this school has the depth of coverage required. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is nothing there, per GNG. GenQuest "scribble" 13:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing in books. The 49 total web results are database excerpts, social media, driving directions, and so on; nothing solid. Mathglot (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buting Senior High School[edit]

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

Same as the others, the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. The single source in the article is a one line entry from a government database. This is a normal school, looks like a nice one, but not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk  17:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  17:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  17:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

San Joaquin-Kalawaan High School[edit]

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

Same as the others, the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. The single source in the article is a one line entry from a government database. This is a normal school, looks like a nice one, but not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk  17:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like the only thing out there about this school are social media links. There isn't even the usual trivial news articles in Google News or anything on Google Google Scholar. So, this clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG as a subject. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is nothing there, per GNG. GenQuest "scribble" 13:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant coverage. Two trivial mentions in books in legalistic journals; web results are social media, and database extracts from phone books, public records, maps, stock photos, and so on. Note that the actual number of web results is 51, not 12,500 as can be seen by going to the last page of results. Mathglot (talk) 17:54, 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 Redirect all to the respective ship articles. There's consensus against keeping these, but no consensus about whether to delete, redirect and/or merge. The redirection allows editors to decide for each individual article whether they want to merge any (sourced or sourceable) content from the history. I'm asking the nominator, Lettler, or others to implement the redirections because the closing script doesn't support automation of this step. Sandstein 13:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd von Arnim[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Very similar to the Navy Cross nominations, except this person had no high-level award, only a ship named after him. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating these other articles for the same reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello •
  • All of these could be merged to the ships named after them. And if they are deleted, they should be recreated as redirects. The easiest way to do this would be for @Lettler: to withdraw this nomination and then redirect all of these to the ships, with individual decisions on merging. I don't see much point in an AFD. —Kusma (t·c) 18:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that we've got other comments, withdrawing is no longer an option, so redirect all, with optional merge if it is worth it. —Kusma (t·c) 14:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, then redirect. Once and for all, just having a ship named after you does not establish notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect all to their respective ships as namesakes, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159#having a military ship named after you proves notability, similar to what I'm doing for US medal recipients who had ships names for them. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot none of them meet standard inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect all as stated by others. Intothatdarkness 18:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought the idea of trying to stuff in dozens of other articles into the AfD for a single one was already addressed, and the gist of it was that it's a bad idea, and yet it being done again here. Each article should have it's own nom and it's own review. - wolf 03:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it was a bad idea in that case because the notability (or lack thereof) of the nominees varied, plus there were a lot more of them. Here, it's all about the same: German naval men who performed a valiant deed and got a ship named after them, not much else (not even a decoration?). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then merge all As stated by Mztourist above. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 20:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all. Not notable, but should be merged as an alternative to deletion. These are longstanding articles, so if the content was merged to the namesake ship article in the past or if content will be merged as a result of this AfD – quality of the article content varies – then we can't delete the pages, since they would be legally needed for attribution reasons. Unless someone wants to do the work poring over the page histories for all the articles to conclusively show that attribution isn't required, it's easier to not delete the pages. Some of the pages can be straight redirected such as those in the first half of the list, but several of the articles in the second half have content that isn't on the ship article/pictures that might be added to the target page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all: do not meet WP:BIO. There's nothing to merge as the source listed in most of these articles is someone's personal web site: http://www.german-navy.de/. --K.e.coffman (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nagpayong High School[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. The single source in the article is a one line entry from a government database. This is a normal school, looks like a nice one, but not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk  16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santolan High School[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. The single source in the article is a one line entry from a government database. This is a normal school, looks like a nice one, but not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk  16:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  16:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  16:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sagad High School[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. The single source in the article is a one line entry from a government database. This is a normal school, looks like a nice one, but not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk  16:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  16:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  16:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kapitolyo High School[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. The single source in the article is a one line entry from a government database. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk  16:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  16:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  16:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rico Kuijpers[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Bocanegra (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bocanegra (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bocanegra (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bocanegra (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant coverage, so likely fails WP:GNG; Tribuna, WF, Soccerway and BeSoccer do not have any appearances recorded that would allow him to pass WP:NFOOTBALL Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did not find significant coverage. He was often mentioned in the Eindhovens Dagblad as a player of SV Deurne, especially after scoring. At VVV he played in young adult teams. He also sat on the bench and played in friendly games of the main squad. SV Deurne was definitely the height of his career but even there no signs of meeting the WP:GNG. WP:NFOOTY is definitely not met. To replicate my research enter site:ed.nl "Rico Kuijpers" into a Google search box. Such mentions can also be found in BN De Stem and in ED misspelled as Rico Kuipers. Missing is any in-depth coverage. gidonb (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails both GNG and NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:55, 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) 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesh Seth[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO scope_creepTalk 15:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:39, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Løkke[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "passes nfooty and ngng [sic]" - This is wildly incorrect on both counts. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:11, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rune Lothe[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "passes nfooty and ngng [sic]" - This is wildly incorrect on both counts. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:10, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Petter Lyngstad[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "passes WP:FOOTY" - this is incorrect because the player's handful of appearances in the top division of men's football in Norway happened when the league was semi-pro. More importantly, there is no evidence of WP:GNG-level significant coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Jun[edit]

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of an economist and television presenter, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion standards for either occupation. As usual, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs -- but the only "reference" here is his staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer, not any evidence of third-party coverage about him in media outlets independent of him. And while I've also had to strip a bunch of WP:ELNO-violating offsite links from the body text, they also weren't reliable source coverage in media, but the websites of organizations or people named in the text and/or other language Wikipedias, which also aren't notability-building sources. Again, the notability test is not "he exists" -- it's "his work has been externally deemed as significant by media outlets that don't issue his paycheques", but there's no evidence of that being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Evern[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an organizational founder, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for businesspeople. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically verifiable that they have jobs -- we're an encyclopedia, not a LinkedIn clone, and the notability test requires certain quantifiable achievements and a certain quality and depth of third-party media coverage about them, not just evidence that he exists. But of the five footnotes here, two are the self-published websites of his own firms being cited solely to verify that they exist, one is an IMDb profile and one is a Q&A interview on a non-notable blog in which he's the person doing the speaking and not the thing being spoken about -- and the only source that comes from a real media outlet also has him as its bylined author, and not its subject. All of which means that none of these are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all, because none of them represent real media coverage about him and his achievements. (There's also no explanation whatsoever, either in the article or any of the sources, of why our article is titled Chad Evern, while the sources all refer to him as Chad Knowles, which is the kind of discrepancy that needs to be explained.)
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more and better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the very well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources that establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is wholly a non notable business executive. Before search returned results only to social media sites which are not reliable sources. Luciapop (talk) 10:52, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Khan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and university instructor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. As always, neither writers nor academics are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically verifiable that they and their work exist -- the inclusion test requires certain specific markers of significance (e.g. notable literary awards), and it requires real third-party coverage about him in reliable sources. But of the eleven footnotes here, five are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person (and four of those, furthermore, are from podcasts), two are corporate blogs, two are glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage about something other than himself, and one is his staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer -- the closest thing to a good source is a university student newspaper covering him in the context of winning an internal staff award from his own employer, which would be fine if the other sources around it were better but is not "inherently" notable enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the strongest source in play. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more and better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing in the article suggests the subject is notable. Delete per the well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IDology[edit]

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

Defunct startup. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS scope_creepTalk 13:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this company. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Passing mentions, press releases, and unreliable sources fall short of WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Simmons[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR none of the sources even mention her. Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being interviewed doesn't support notability (a source only supports her notability if it consists of other people talking about her in the third person, and not if it consists of her talking about herself in the first), being mentioned in media doesn't necessarily support notability (there's a difference between sources that are about her and sources that just mention her), and just asserting that her podcast is famous isn't a notability freebie that exempts anyone from actually having to source the significance of her podcast by demonstrating that it's been the subject of any third-party analysis of its importance. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Lancome did include her in their "40 powerful women", the silver Remi is now sourced, the charity is real and sourceable, profile in Telegraph behind a paywall: I think it adds up to notability. PamD 17:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm quite happy to be proved wrong here, but the in-depth coverage is pretty slim at the moment. Theroadislong (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My primary intent was to extract WP:COI involvement in the article and remove promotional content. As for notability, I'm not convinced this meets WP:ENT. The point about lack of in-depth coverage is well taken. We generally do not put much weight in interviews as evidence of notability, although in this case at least two of the interviews were published in high profile magazines. My question is whether these and a few articles about the podcast are sufficient. I'm dubious. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her podcast is well known and her acting credits are confirmed. There is a large amount of valid information out there about her as a professional actress and podcaster. See references: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] StefB12 (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what constitutes a reliable source it does not include IMDb (user edited), United Agents (primary source), podcasts (primary source), playacts (primary source) and getty images (photographs are not sources). Theroadislong (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily passes notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as seemingly notable, but someone needs to comb through the history because due to COI editing the page has morphed significantly over the past week or so and we should make sure no sources get lost. Confusingly I found this discussion via the AfC helpdesk as the COI editor seemed to be pasting the matter in unrelated discussion forums (this was already in mainspace, yes?) BlackholeWA (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0799850/
  2. ^ https://www.unitedagents.co.uk/mika-simmons
  3. ^ https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-happy-vagina/id1493974007
  4. ^ https://play.acast.com/s/thehappyvagina
  5. ^ https://www.vanityfair.com/london/2021/01/lights-camera-orgasm-an-interview-with-mika-simmons
  6. ^ https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/entertainment/mika-simmons-sex-education-podcast-vagina-681125
  7. ^ https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/in-the-news/gynaecological-awareness-month-how-to-have-a-happy-vagina/
  8. ^ https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/photos/mika-simmons?family=editorial&phrase=mika%20simmons&sort=mostpopular
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7, there is no real claim to importance as a small startup website and only one independent source. Speedy tag was removed by a COI editor so no need to wait the full seven days. Fences&Windows 17:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shopless[edit]

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

I find no evidence of notability from a web search. At most one source cited in the article is substantial coverage in an possibly independent reliable source, and it isn't clear to me that it's independent. I A7ed the article but somebody removed the tag. Largoplazo (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 13:11, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saumen Sarkar[edit]

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

Pretty much on the back of a non-notable event WP:BLP1E. Some other citations included are just passing mention. Fails WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shau Kei Wan Government Secondary School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 11:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "筲箕灣官立中學開放日 東區的Band1英文中學" [Shau Kei Wan Government Secondary School Open Day. Band1 English Secondary School in Eastern District]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2017-04-28. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

      The article notes that Shau Kei Wan Government Secondary School was established in 1961, that it is the first coeducational English grammar school on Hong Kong Island following the war, and that notable alumni include Frederick Fung, Alan Tam, and Helen To (zh:杜如風). The article notes that Shau Kei Wan Government Secondary School is "a prestigious school in the Eastern District" where the previous year 162 students sat for the DSE exam. Almost 80% of its Form 6 students choose to attend postsecondary institutions. The school teaches all subjects in English with the exception of Chinese language, Chinese history, Mandarin, and general education. It has "a special English extensive reading program". Its library houses numerous English comics and magazines for checkout by students. It has a "reading ambassador program" that frequently puts on speeches and debate contests. Teachers who came from other countries lead after-school lessons to strengthen students' English language skills. The article spends several more paragraphs discussing the school.

    2. Chan, Margaret (1993-02-24). "Displays prove star attraction". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

      The article notes, "More than a thousand visitors from the local area attended an open day at the Shau Kei Wan Government Secondary School recently. The primary objective of the day was to encourage students and teachers to become more involved in the school and allow visitors and primary school students, who will enrol in next year's intake, to learn more about the curriculum."

    3. 許嘉明 (2020-01-22). "【D1排球】男女排齊入決賽成近10年「唯一」 筲官「黃金一代」雙亞不留憾" [[D1 Volleyball] Boys and girls line up to enter the finals and become the "only" Shau Kei "golden generation" in the past nearly 10 years. Two runner up prizes: has no regrets]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

      The article discusses Shau Kei's volleyball team. From Google Translate, "If the Shau Kei Wan Government High School is mentioned in the academic volleyball arena, fans may immediately remember the "golden generation" of the school's men's volleyball team in the 15/16 season in the D1 school in Hong Kong and Kowloon. However, the two runner up women's volleyball team did not let the female volleyball team win this season. Although they were both runner-ups in D1 with the men's volleyball team, they became the only school in the past 10 years where both men's and women's volleyball teams can reach the finals in D1."

    4. Pang, Ben (2015-11-30). "Victory for Shau Kei Wan Government Secondary School at the A-grade Inter-school Volleyball Competition. SKW volleyball team are inter-school champs, thanks to solid serves, deep digs, and big blocks". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

      The article discusses the A-grade Inter-school Volleyball Competition at Shek Kip Mei Park Sports Centre between Shau Kei Wan Government Secondary School (SKW) and Cheung Sha Wan Catholic Secondary School (CSW).

    5. Ko, Terri (1993-11-03). "Athletes at Shau Kei Wan Government Secondary Technical School inspired to give". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

      The article discusses Shau Kei Wan Government Secondary Technical School holding their athletic meet at the Wan Chai Sports Ground last week. Striking out this source since it discusses a neighbouring school as noted by Citobun below. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    6. Hui, Jessie (2006-07-14). "Fusion of east and west". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

      The article notes, "Shau Kei Wan Government Secondary School (SGSS) celebrated its 45th anniversary with a musical feast last Friday."

    7. Hui, Jessie (2006-04-15). "Shau Kei Wan robot makes a splash". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

      The article notes, "A team from Shau Kei Wan Government Secondary School has been crowned champions in Hong Kong's first underwater robot challenge. Organised by the WWF Hong Kong and City University (CityU) for Form Four to Form Seven students, the final was held in the swimming pool at CityU."

    8. Lam, Emily (2000-12-13). "Focus put on SAR's needs". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

      The article notes, "To improve students' language abilities, the school had organised extensive reading and award schemes. Students' public speaking skills were boosted with the implementation of programmes which made use of the school's audio-visual production and broadcasting system."

    9. Chung, Peggy (1997-02-15). "School has a wedding. The spotlight falls on social life at the Shau Kei Wan Government Secondary School open day". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

      The article notes, "This year's open day was different at Shau Kei Wan Government Secondary School. ...The highlight of the open day was the traditional Chinese wedding ceremony performed by some Form Six students. This activity was prepared by the Chinese and Chinese History clubs."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shau Kei Wan Government Secondary School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per Cunards excellent find in sources. Personally speaking I would've liked to have seen more than just China Post however there is a Hong Kong Economic Times included. Meets SCHOOL & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 01:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I have beefed up the article a little bit. In addition to Cunard's finds, there should be more material in historic (pre-1990s) SCMP issues and in Chinese-language sources. I will dig deeper when I have more time. BTW, just to prevent any confusion, I believe that the "Shau Kei Wan Government Secondary Technical School" mentioned in one of the above sources does not refer to this school, but rather is the former name of the neighbouring Shau Kei Wan East Government Secondary School (PDF in Chinese noting former name of SKWEGSS). Citobun (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your improvements to the article and for the correction regarding the source that discusses Shau Kei Wan East Government Secondary School. I have stricken it from the list of sources. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 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) 11:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wojciech Kotlarek[edit]

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

Resumé-like BLP, recreation of previously deleted article, apparently created by a family member of the subject. The references are mostly to affiliated sources and notability is not established. Mccapra (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This is a close call, but I read an emergent consensus that ReaderOfThePack's improvements alongside a possible expansion of the NBOOK criteria as sufficient to go ahead and close this. Certainly no prejudice against renomination (perhaps with a bias towards merge/redirect) if the consensus of the notability discussion goes in a different direction, but it seems, for now, this can be safely closed. Go Phightins! 01:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Go Phightins! 01:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Eden[edit]

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

Skipping PROD as it's a work of a major author. But it is just a short story, and one that seems to have trouble meeting WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK. My BEFORE gave me only snippet view in one book that suggests there may be some discussion of this on pages 44-45 of Lord Rc (1 July 2007). Pink Beam: A Philip K. Dick Companion. Lulu.com. ISBN 978-1-4303-2437-9. (but lulu.com is WP:SPS). There is also a podcast dedicated to this story [12]. And that's it, all other mentions I saw are just trivial (WP:SIGCOV-failing) bibliographical notices that the story was published in 1954. I couldn't find as much as a single sentence about its reception/significance. But perhaps someone has something that is not well indexed in Google and like, that contains a review or at least a paragraph about the story? (Just remember, we need more than plot summaries). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not look like it meets the notability guideline. -Cupper52Discuss! 10:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would say merge, but it doesn't appear we have an article on the works of PKD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would point out that just passing WP:NBOOK is not a guaranteed reason for an article to remain by itself, as even that guideline states that it "is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book", and that reliable sources are still needed. In this case, the seemingly complete lack of coverage in reliable sources this particular story has received would, I would argue, indicate that a separate, stand-alone article would not be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It also says This guideline provides some additional criteria for use in deciding whether a book should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. Satisfying this notability guideline generally indicates a book warrants an article and after the bit you quoted Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Andrew and I have put the case for that discussion.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davidstewartharvey, So far you made a valid point that this can be redirected to the PKD bibliography article, which is appreciated. But there is no argument I can see for keeping this entry. Have you found any new sources that can be used to expand it and that show this topic passes GNG? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus I didn't have time to look properly last night. Fellow editors have found refs, and this morning I have added another, and the copyright paperwork from 1983 that was on wikimedia commons. Looking at the other short story collections, large number have one reference from the Locus Index.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davidstewartharvey, This is not a short story collection. Nice job expanding the bibliography and even finding the A copyright renewal notice document, but those are WP:PRIMARY, not independent sources that don't contribute to establishing notability. What we really need is to show that the story won some awards, or at the very least, it was reviewed and generated some reception in reliable sources. If it helps, I just expanded another stub about a sf story with such reception that indicates the story is significant: Now:_Zero#Reception. But I can't find such a discussion about Strange Eden (although RotP did find one source, discussed below, it's a good start). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know they are primary sources but they add to the story. I found the copyright but unfortunatley the story about Dicks son putting the wrong date on as the copyright had expired is on a self published website. My point is a collection of his short stories have only a listing in a directory of Science fiction as the only ref. There is no example of impact. They are on Wikipedia under WP:Nactor #5, or should they be put to AFD? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Technically this is a book now, even if an ebook, as it has been published ISBN 9781435509771. Beyond Lies the Wub (collection), Robots, Androids, and Mechanical Oddities, Second Variety (1989 collection), The Father-Thing (collection) (which also contains Strange Eden), The Days of Perky Pat (collection), The Little Black Box (collection) all have one ref or a link to the same database that this page was originally. If we delete this page then these need to be AFD too, even though I think they meet Wp:Nbook #5.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davidstewartharvey, In all honesty, the story itself is more meaningful and notable than the anthologies, which are just collections of stories. At least, that's how it should be in theory (since there's little creativity that goes into selection stories for an anthology, comparing to actually writing the said stories; in the end the best one could say is that anthology a has a space opera theme, anthology b collects works than won a particular award that year, and anthology c contains stories editors x and y liked...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the stories are actually more important. Some of the anthologies seem to be actually just rehashed versions of previous anthologies, and many don't seem to have much acclaim from reviews - there seems more interest in certain stories, or like the Minority Report are famous because of adaptions.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm kind of torn. On one hand, I do think that PKD is notable enough to where any of his works would be notable as well. On the other, there's really not a lot of sourcing out there. This poses an issue as to what can really be done here since we can't truly flesh the article out that much. We could add a section on when it was released and some mentions of the collections it's been released in since then. However this also needs sections on things like themes, reception, and development. It's entirely possible that there are sources out there, but they aren't on the internet for whatever reason. I'll try and see what I can do, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did manage to find some coverage of themes in a PhD thesis, so there's that. I'm not really content to keep it on that alone, but the article is more fleshed out now. At the very worst I think this should redirect to perhaps the The Father-Thing (collection), but with the history intact so that if/when more sourcing becomes available this can be restored. I am more certain now that there's likely coverage off the internet, but can't find anything that would make enough of a slam bang case to make this a more comfortable keep for me. (Not arguing keep or delete at the moment, just saying that I wouldn't be comfortable arguing for a keep at this point sinc ethe sourcing is still weak.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • ReaderofthePack, The article looks much better now, although the entirety of its significance does rest on few sentences in a PhD thesis. Believe it or not, I'd be happy to 'lose' this argument and see the article kept, but objectively, the sources are still not there, I am afraid. Anyway, good job finding this mention. As you say, maybe there is still more we can dig up. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's my conundrum as well. I'd say that currently the page likely has more comprehensive information on the story than any other place on the internet, but it just needs more sourcing since we can't use WP:ITSUSEFUL as a justification. If anyone can access it, this might offer something useful but it doesn't want to come up for me. It may be a result of my being in the US, as I know some sites are geographic specific. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • ReaderofthePack, Indeed. The page is now well written and useful. On another hand, WP:ITSUSEFUL is a relevant critique to consider here. Let's hope we can dig something more, one more source to warrant keeping this (I interpret GNG as requiring two sources, and you found one - although WP:SIGCOV is an issue, too, sigh). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm leaning more towards merge now. I've been searching for hours, off and on, but can't find anything really substantial. The most I found was a post on SFFaudio where they claim that the story is in the public domain due to a filing error, but I'm not even entirely sure if the site is usable as a RS or not. They have editorial oversight but the formatting on some of their posts leaves a little to be desired. I'm thinking that we could probably selectively merge some of the information into the article "The Father-Thing (collection)". To avoid this putting undue weight on one short story we could flesh out the article to include brief information on each individual story, then put a condensed version of any individual story coverage in the reception section. This could prove to be a reasonable alternative if there are any other short stories that have similar issues. I really, really want to argue for a keep here but I just can't justify it. It feels too much like I'm bending the rules in a way they're not meant to be bent. I get the feeling you're kind of feeling the same here. If there were just one more reasonably good source I'd argue for keep but I just can't find anything. I don't think that the notability guidelines cover reprints in collections and I'm leery about arguing for that, given that it seems like it'd be an easily exploited loophole. I'll broach the subject at NBOOK to see what they think. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright thing appears on quite a few message boards about Dick, but I can't find anything concrete other than the actual form on wiki media (which is a federal released document) which shows the wrong date! As per the discussion above The Father-Thing (collection) has only a reference to Locus, which is just a listing so is worse referenced than this article is now!Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I started a discussion here. It's more of a feeler to see how feasible such a guideline would be, but I'd like feedback. So far I think for it to work it'd have to be limited to academic/scholarly reprints, so it wouldn't help out here even if were to be instantly approved, but it could help out in other marginal cases. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Key is whether the author is so important that each single one of his short stories is significant OR if this particular story has had sufficient coverage. gidonb (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction , we read that "The posthumous growth in Dick's reputation is, of course, partially due to the huge amount of critical attention his work has received, an attention so excessive, given the number of sf writers who also merit sustained study, that at least one scholarly journal refused in the early twenty-first century to consider, at least for a period, any further essays on his work." Per our policy WP:NOTPAPER, we have no such constraints. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew, I purposefully raised the possibility that all of Dick's short stories could be notable because he is such an important author and because I do not consider it shocking if we would virtually add over a hundred articles to WP. I just haven't made the value judgment that the author is that notable. It's an option we should consider. My comment is not a keep or delete opinion but outlines the routes under which the article could be notable. I would not have mentioned these routes if they were pure hypotheticals. The other route is the story's own publicity. gidonb (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion on whether ReaderOfThePack's improvements have helped changed consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Philip K Dick, while prominent, is also so prolific that not all his short stories are automatically considered notable. GNG isn't met, and the only two non-primary sources are a blog post about the copyright status, and one mention in a 400-page PHD thesis. Unless/until there is more coverage, a redirect to Philip K. Dick bibliography is better than a stand-alone article. No need to delete the article history. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NBOOK, the author is notable. just needs more ref's. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 20:51, 8 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 Characters of the Deipnosophistae. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonides of Elis[edit]

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

This stub is based on one passage in Athenaeus' Deipnosophistae, a primary source. The two standard works (New Pauly and Oxford Classical Dictionary) don't have entries on this subject. Of course, Wikipedia is not a paper book but we're also not a directory of people mentioned in classical literature. I have not found significant secondary coverage, so WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO are not met. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The creator has since added two secondary sources, whose merit I believe to be the following: the first (p. 44 in this one) is very brief and reveals no biographical detail, instead the source says that most of of the subject's contributions are "entirely unmemorable". The other source is a general reference to this book. I've looked for the subject in the index, where his name should have been between "law" and "letters" on p. 613. Since existence does still not equal notability, I'd say that the subject is non-notable. Perhaps, a redirect to Deipnosophistae might work as well. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: I agree that there is potential for a merge here, though I find it difficult to subscribe to the assertion that the section in the Acta Classica article demonstrates potential. To my mind, the section shows that the subject is merely a minor interlocutor mentioned on a few occasions. I'd compare him to Todd Flanders from The Simpsons, who does not have a stand-alone article. What would you say about the following solution: one could group this and similar subjects into an overview article, e.g. Characters of the Deipnosophistae? Modussiccandi (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. The point is that we should be constructive rather than destructive. See The Web of Athenaeus for a book which develops this theme. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that the editor has had other articles of this kind moved to draft. I'll ping Digitalphilologist, perhaps they agree that an overview article could be useful to keep the content of these pages in the mainspace. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for this discussion. I agree on creating an overview article for Characters of the Deipnosophistae. I have been trying to create single entries for each Deipnosophist, but I agree that for most of them we have very few sources and a collective article makes more sense (pointing also to other resources like https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deipnosophist). The only thing is that I would be nice to have separate entries in Wikidata for each character in Athenaeus. Digitalphilologist (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Digitalphilologist, for taking part in this discussion. Since we all broadly agree on the course of action, I think you should just start the Characters of the Deipnosophistae article and add some of the content you've written on the individual interlocutors. I'll then change my vote to merge/redirect and, once this discussion closes, Leonides of Elis will be redirected/merged to said article. Now, about Wikidata: I think it's possible to create entries directly from the Wikidata main page; there's a link saying "Create a new Item" in the left-hand sidebar. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Modussiccandi, I have created the page Characters of the Deipnosophistae Digitalphilologist (talk) 11:03, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Davis (darts player)[edit]

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster talk 20:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 20:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 20:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NSPORT also lacks WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - success in World Youth indicates notability. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG as all coverage is routine. Reaching a World Youth final means nothing as players his age and younger have won proper world championships. Dougal18 (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Van Gaerwen was 24 when he won the PDC World championship, the youngest ever. Davis was younger and World Youth Final is televised and classed as important in darts world.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:09, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dennant[edit]

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster talk 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:51, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umapathy Films[edit]

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

I can't find anything to suggest that this passes WP:NCORP; I have checked the references provided at Draft:Umapathy Films, all of which are just passing mentions and done a WP:BEFORE search and found nothing better. This fails on WP:CORPDEPTH because I could not find any sources (let alone the multiple sources which are required) providing an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the company. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:25, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Massaccesi[edit]

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

Non-notable person.-Cupper52Discuss! 10:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.-Cupper52Discuss! 10:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. No sources found, offical website no longer active. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need a source other than the subject's own website to justify an article. I am amazed at how many times I write this in deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 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) 11:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie (Hungarian singer)[edit]

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

Reason: Non-notable. Participated at Eurovision and gained a bad position, the lowest one his country has gained. Also features Hungarian names in their original order rather than Western name order. Plus, no infobox, which usually supports lack of notability. His page was created over 6 YEARS after his song's page, with the song page being created in 2006 and Charlie's page created in 2013. Everything about this screams bad Uncyclopedia reject. --SteveBrownIreland (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It has already been established several times that participating in ESC is notable within WP:NMUSIC #10 and #12. And also per WP:GNG. That his article needs expansion and improvements are not a reason for deletion so that rationale is mute.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looking at his Hungarian article, he has had multiple top 10 albums, including two certified as platinum! It also looks like he has a biography written about him, which indicates some level of notability at least. Competing in Eurovision (regardless of where he finished, which is irrelevant) is also a claim to notability. The name order issue is an easy fix and does not require deletion. Having no infobox is no reason to delete the article nor is the fact that the biography for the singer came after the article for the song. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is famous here in Hungary (that is not a reason, I know). I may not like him (that's not a reason either, I know that too), but he is notable, and I agree with BabbaQ and Spiderone. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC with charting albums on the Hungarian national chart as well as the Eurovision participation so he deserves to be included, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it somewhat comical that this is even a discussion. For goodness sake, Charlie is a high-charting artist in Hungary! The fact that someone would nominate his page for deletion because he is not notable in the United States screams American ignorance. Jonathan170 (talk) 00:56, 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) 11:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Divyansh Mishra[edit]

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

This is a borderline WP:A7. His sole claim to notability is featuring in one episode of a TV show so clearly fails WP:NACTOR. I can't find any source giving him more than just a passing mention so WP:GNG is not met. It was declined at draft but the author moved it over with the comment I have provided all the verified sources that tells the truth of the biography and the notability.


The draft currently redirects to this article so I had no option to draftify again therefore I am taking this to AfD.


Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But he has also been featured in 3 episodes. He is one of the prominent actor in this series, so this must not be deleted. I think this article needs an improvement rather than deleting it. He was also one of the main actor in Shubh Mangal zyada Savdhan movie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:6004:6F64:7804:9B51:2E3C:5394 (talk • contribs)

Where is your proof that he had a main role in Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan? Also, please can you prove that he is a prominent actor in the series. I can't find any sources that show that. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it, you'll get the proof.No movie or series will tell you that ... these are my special cast and these are my local cast. You better watch these movies by yourself and then decide about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:6004:6F64:801F:5ED1:5795:BF1C (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The multiple sources all are about one movie, and the acting notability guideline requires multiple roles. Naive Google search finds no third-party mention that would address general notability, only that the subject uses social media. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -The author is reminded that simply being loud and assertive is not a useful way to "win" a content dispute in Wikipedia. Please remember to edit logged-in. A closer will not count you twice simply by using an IP address. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that he has also appeared in Shubh mangal zyada savdhan - http://www.bollywoodbx.com/movie/shubh-mangal-zyada-saavdhan-2020 https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebrity/divyansh-mishra/filmography/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanewiki01 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was also a one of a stunt crew in Extraction 2020 movie, proof - https://www.famousfix.com/topic/extraction-90099502/crew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanewiki01 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, I request you to remove the notice as I've spend a lot of time in gathering the sources and making this page. I have given you all the proofs that he has apeeared in movie more than once and has prominent roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanewiki01 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of those websites are user-generated (i.e. anyone can edit them) and there is no evidence that he has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions or a large fan base or a significant "cult" following or made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Most importantly, he fails WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This 16-year-old is clearly not yet notable. Having a small role in one production just does not cut it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not pass WP:GNG, and clearly fails WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 15:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't meet WP:ENT. No reliable sources. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His name on Dainik Jagran (Newspaper) - https://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/agra-city-student-of-gla-university-organised-debate-competition-on-new-agriculture-act-21394894.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:6004:6F64:5DD6:4B40:6D0B:1F9 (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the cast section in Digit binge ( A verifiable source) - https://www.digit.in/digit-binge/shows/1962-the-war-in-the-hills-283959.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:6004:6F64:5DD6:4B40:6D0B:1F9 (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalam news - https://malayalam.samayam.com/malayalam-cinema/movie-review/abhay-deol-sumit-vyas-akash-thosar-mahie-gill-starrer-1962-the-war-in-the-hills-movie-review-rating-in-malayalam/moviereview/81243531.cms

None of those contain any depth at all. He is mentioned just once in each of them. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Dainik Jagran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanewiki01 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did. He is mentioned just once in that article. No depth at all. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:08, 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) 11:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Çiğdem y Mirol[edit]

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

No reliable sources found; all book sources located via WP:BEFORE only mention this individual in passing as part of a list. Fails WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn with no delete votes (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oruvan (1999 film)[edit]

Oruvan (1999 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help this pass WP:NFILM. Previous PROD resulted in deletion, but recreated after "prod challenged by Neutral Fan at WP:REFUND" Donaldd23 (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - article now includes better sources. In fact, the WP:REFUND request itself had the sources which the nominators missed in their deletion of this article. Casually calling it a "non notable" film is questionable, when looking at the high-profile cast and crew of the project. Neutral Fan (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the article has been improved with extra content sourced to additional reliable sources. A weak keep because the reviews are on the short side, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable and sourced. Shahid • Talk2me 13:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Expanded well enough, with at least two reliable reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The cited reviews are sufficient to meet NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn per WP:HEY. Thanks everyone. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:35, 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. Cabayi (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conscious action theory[edit]

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

The main purpose of the article seems to be to promote the idea (and book) of one person. The sources cited are written by the person in question, and a search finds nothing better (mostly just booksellers!). Fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fringe speculation that has not attracted enough attention, academic or otherwise, to be noteworthy speculation. The lengthy pile of primary sources includes things that look like scholarly journals but aren't, like Physics Essays and Quantum Biosystems, which ... whoo boy. Come for the hydrodynamic quantum field and the musical structure of consciousness, stay for the it's-totally-not-creationism! XOR'easter (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lol, whoever wrote the article is not even trying to demonstrate notability, or to pretend the article is anything other than a promotion of Wolfgang Baer. Tercer (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for self-publication.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is probably not really notable. There is a book [15] that was published by Routledge, a major academic publisher, but it is a very new book (2018) and not widely reviewed. I found one review [16], but there isn't enough out there yet. < Atom (Anomalies) 18:19, 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. Cabayi (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judas & Jesus[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Shown at some festivals, but didn't get much attention, didn't win any prizes as far as I can see. The few sources I could find were mostly either blogs or not independent, or passing mentions. Fram (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, for example there are no external reviews listed at IMDb and no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes so WP:GNG is not passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. It is open to editors to merge, redirect, or draftify the article as a normal editorial action. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charmco Building[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBUILD. Article makes no claim of notability for the building. The community was named after the company (which already has an article), not the building. Sources in the article are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No indication that the building - the subject of the article meets NBUILD, "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Nothing properly sourced for a merge, redirect seems unneeded, but they are cheap if someone wishes to redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  07:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  07:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  07:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the company, if there's anything substantial to merge (doesn't look like it). SportingFlyer T·C 16:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - nothing of any importance to merge (we don't need to know how long a building was vacant for, or when it was listed as sale pending). The curious thing is the article creator has given it an NHRP infobox, which if true, would provide the needed notability. However, clicking on the reference number brings up nothing, and searches within the NHRP database under "Charmco" or "Charleston Milling", also bring up zero results. Absence of inclusion in NHRP, the building does indeed not pass either GNG or NBUILD. If someone comes up with a different name for the building and that is NHRP, please ping me. Onel5969 TT me 15:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: Would you consider draftificaiton given that it has been submitted to the NRHP? -- Whpq (talk) 18:45, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 winter heatwave[edit]

2021 winter heatwave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LASTING, WP:INDEPTH, WP:EVENTCRIT - "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."  // Timothy :: talk  07:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  07:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The article is about Europe, it mentions Beijing in the last sentence, but the source is about Europe, so there is nothing to merge. Someone can certainly add the above to the Beijing article, but again nothing here to merge.  // Timothy :: talk  16:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's because the record winter temperatures in Beijing are notable, routinely high winter temperatures in Europe are not (per nom). SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply:: The article has been updated and based on sources found, it also includes South Korea's town Pahong reaching 24.9 °C (76.8 °F) on February 21st. The previous known record of high winter temperature was 24.5 °C (76.1 °F).

AustroHungarian1867, (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, changing vote following article revision. This weather event is notable because it resulted in several new temperature records across a wide area. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Considered notable agreeing to this users fact. We'll see what else can be considered to keep this article according to wikipedia's standards. AustroHungarian1867 (AustroHungarian1867) 4:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sneschana Russewa-Hoyer[edit]

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 06:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:59, 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 withdrawn. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Legate Howard[edit]

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

He retired as a Captain, was awarded a Navy Cross and had a destroyer escort named for him USS Douglas L. Howard (DE-138) during WWII. I would normally merge info to the ship and create a redirect per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159#having a military ship named after you proves notability, but it may be that his 4 year career as coach at the United States Naval Academy establishes notability Mztourist (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination in light of consensus regarding his coaching career. Request close as Speedy Keep. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist: In light of the points presented, and improvement to the article, would you be willing to withdraw this so everyone can move on to other things? Cbl62 (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 21:34, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nye Lavalle[edit]

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

Article is essentially a resume. Original author[17] registered an account in March 2009, created this article as their first act, spent 2-3 months spamming links to it in other articles, and was never heard from after May 2009, by which time they racked up over half a dozen warnings[18] for promotional editing and related issues. They were clearly here with an agenda of promoting the subject.

I found two secondary sources that discuss the subject:[19] [20] Both articles discuss the subject in reference to the same event. Other Google hits are mostly trivial mentions or derive from the Wikipedia article itself.

Would there be a Nye Lavalle article had the original (promotional) author not created one? Unlikely. The article gets 2-3 pageviews per day. The subject's social media [21], [22] have under 1,000 followers. Certainly, pageview counts and social media followers aren't in and of themselves grounds for deletion, but they indicate the subject is a low-profile individual and, given the age of their scant media coverage, is likely to remain so.Damon Killian (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no notability under all that promotional lard.Mccapra (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:00, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Democracy Forum[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator has been blocked as a spam sockpuppeteer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Barely found anything about the conference aside from a brief description in a book. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 09:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having conducted extensive search for independent reliable sources and found nothing, it is clear that the subject lacks notability. Luciapop (talk) 10:44, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Morrison[edit]

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

Jenny Morrison is not notable. Just because you are the wife of a prime minister doesn't make you notable. JJK2000 (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Subject clearly satisfies WP:GNG with significant coverage in independent reliable sources over an extended period. As the 29th spouse of the prime minister of Australia, 28 of whom have articles, one wonders why Morrison alone should be singled out. (No, this is not an WP:OSE argument since "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability".) WWGB (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Given that the article includes multiple references to reliable sources on Ms Morrison, it is obvious that WP:BIO is met. As she is the wife of the PM, it can be safely assumed that many more references are available. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep existing sources demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The above comments convince me that the subject of this article is certainly notable. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly meets WP:BIO and many more references likely available. This is the second article this user has nominated where there is clear sourcing available - their only argument seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Deus et lex (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NOTINHERITED doesn't apply if you pass WP:GNG, which she clearly does. SportingFlyer T·C 12:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BLP subject is a figure of regular attention and controversy in the Australian media. — JEREMY 04:48, 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) 07:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InstrumentChamp[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Essentially no secondary coverage, or information on the game at all from any source other than the game's fundedbyme page. The article's creator looks to be an SPA as well. Loafiewa (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I considered nominating this a few weeks/months back when I added the logo but didn't feel confident in my decision at the time. Searching for sources again and seeing another editor's support, I now feel like deletion is warranted and support this nomination. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • InstrumentChamp seems very much like an important . And I have tried it with my piano, guitar and drums. I hope it will stay on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.79.174 (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A previous instance of this article, by the same WP:SPA, was rejected at AfC in 2012. Regarding this version created in mainspace in 2015, the crowdfunding page is not sufficient for notability here and searches are not finding better than occasional press releases and routine listings. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:GNG failure and the above comments. IceWelder [✉] 16:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Farari (dacoit)[edit]

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

Article does not meet GNG, ANYBIO, BASIC. Sources in the article briefly mention the subject in relation to events, but there is no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Souces 1, 3 and 4 are about the same report with a brief mention about an event the person was involved in. The single remaining source does not provide a page number and the article does not contain their name in Hindi, so it cannot be V'd, but even if this was V, a single source could not establish notability.  // Timothy :: talk  02:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  02:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  02:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nominator, doesn’t meet gng,basic.
  • Comment फरारी has two more sources. Subject is borderline notable and may be a permastub. Vikram 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 no consensus. Greater Manchester is a region so no consensus Spartaz Humbug! 13:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedwellbus[edit]

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

No coverage outside of local news - fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's some significant coverage of the company (mostly surrounding the circumstances of its closure, it seems). Regarding "local news", I suppose the nominator is referring to WP:NCORP#Audience? I confess that I have no idea what distinction NCORP is trying to draw between "local" and "regional, statewide, [or] provincial", but I would say the coverage in Manchester Evening News is more than merely "local". Adumbrativus (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adumbrativus: For an example, Manchester Evening News covers the county of Greater Manchester, so local. The Yorkshire Post covers the whole region of Yorkshire, so regional. And BBC, ITV, Sky, Guardian, Times etc is provincial/national. The independent sources in the article aren’t very independent. While the MEN does have a little more than "Company closed down" it still fails AUD per above. The Oldham source while also failing AUD is trivial coverage as described in NCORP - "a product line launch". In conclusion while it could scrape past GNG this fails the stricter requirements of NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Manchester Evening News covers the county of Greater Manchester, so local" The population of Greater Manchester is just under 3 million, and the Manchester Evening News has been published since 1868. It's not Rutland. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 8 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. Not relisting a third time. Daniel (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HB Surround Sound[edit]

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

No single source cited. Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 05:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 05:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as since the nomination multiple references have been added to the article. Some of them may not be reliable but The LA Times and The OC Weekly are and there is a close pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:47, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Beds[edit]

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

Promotional article, does not meet WP:NCORP (claim of "first fully recyclable bed" is for the UK only). MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to East Lancashire Coachbuilders. I think just a redirect is appropriate here, as the prose present is fairly minimal and has no sourcing to validate it. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East Lancs Pyoneer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Completely unsourced. SK2242 (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to East Lancashire Coachbuilders, there aren't any news articles on it except from this one and several showbus pages showing it exists but nothing on its history. The rest of its details in the info box are on Flickr photos and YouTube videos which aren't credible sources.NHPluto (talk) 10:06, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. Devapriya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I can't remember precisely what it was about the Saravanamuttu Trophy but there was something strange we discovered about it a million years ago, if only I could remember where it was. I wonder if it's the fact that we discovered there was a considerable amount of offline information about it that has never made the Internet. Bobo. 20:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 13 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 03:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's possible he passes WP:GNG in offline sources, but right now it's referenced only to Cricket Archive. SportingFlyer T·C 01:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:SPORTSPERSON and WP:SIGCOV. Nothing in this article as currently written shows participation "...in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor...". The sole citation is behind a paywall and makes WP:VERIFY impossible. Blue Riband► 13:32, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuo Toda[edit]

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

Insufficient material for an article, as is usual with vice-presidents of even large businesses. The position is given as vice-president, but most large companies have many at that level. His other activities are not the sort that lead to notability -- Bunka Gakunin is a vocational school, and "specially-appointed professor" is a non-academic specialist in some field such as business who either teaches a few applied courses from time to time, or gives a few lectures; Chariman of a universities alumni association is not a noteworthy position as far as an encyclopedia is concerned. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 03:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG, coverage is all primary sources or passing mentions with the exception of a single event where he criticised Yahoo. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Devonian Wombat. (Article was de-prodded by Atlantic306) MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:44, 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. Cabayi (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Gray[edit]

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

Unnoteworthy person Burned Toast (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gray has shown consistent, significant media coverage for over a decade. I strongly believe he passes WP:GNG.

I also believe he has an impressively high amount of coverage beyond the cannabis museum that he deserves his own page. He is public interest for being an unusual and fairly controversial character.

He has been covered for a variety of reasons - some of them including getting arrested at University of Otago, with criticism from Metiria Turei, being president of a notorious cannabis university club Otago NORML, running in mayoral and general elections for TOP, Legalise Cannabis, and independent, founding New Zealand's first and only cannabis museum Whakamana Cannabis Museum, a $2M project with the founder of Cookie Time for an elaborate cannabis institution, considering a $25000 private prosecution of a university vice-chancellor on behalf of students, getting told not to wear a cannabis shirt at the airport, starting a pro-cannabis group called Start The Conversation which was covered by media due to support from Helen Kelly, Marc Willers, Lucy Lawless; appearing in a cannabis documentary covered by New Zealand media outlets. He is also frequently asked by news outlets for his opinion of cannabis issues, which is why there is a section dedicated to 'Views'.

I will link to some of the pages of significant coverage:

Nexus000 (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Passes WP:GNG from all that is written about him, including the interviews in Stuff, NZ Herald and Spinoff that aren't just Mayoral write ups. Seems more that the page needs a cleanup but that isn't a reason to delete it. There is some doubtful references (using Facebook as reference to where he grew up isn't allowed) and too much in the External Links. NZFC(talk)(cont) 23:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Replying to your last sentence: I have removed the Facebook reference, but luckily when I added him to notable alumni of his high school, someone found a newspaper from 1999 which appears to indicate he went to that school. (Article) Stuff's interview with him (article here) shows his upbringing was in Minneapolis and is where much of the content from Early life and Moving to New Zealand and university days comes from. Nexus000 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nexus000: yeah it was just things like that, looking through, that could be referenced by something better so that is good you changed it. Things like that though shouldn't affect the decision about deletion as there appears clear WP:GNG from what was in the reliable source/s provided. NZFC(talk)(cont) 00:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG hands-down. Schwede66 07:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is source-bombed and excessively detailed for his level of notability. Most references are of him just getting quoted in the paper, when the paper needs to talk to a cannabis advocate. I can't make a good delete argument since there are two good sources in a stuff.co.nz article and NZ Herald article, but this article needs a huge amount of cleanup, including merging the coatrack bit on the museum he runs to the page on the museum. SportingFlyer T·C 20:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hands down, Abe Gray passes WP:GNG. Jonathan170 (talk) 00:51, 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) 23:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Family Security Act[edit]

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

A laudable idea, but no actual legislation. Sources are run of the mill coverage of an idea from a Senator. If it passed it would be wonderful and notable, but there is no indication that this is anything other than a noble idea from a single Senator with no indication it is likely to be passed even by a single chamber. Wikipedia is not a database of proposed ideas by legislators.  // Timothy :: talk  02:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  02:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This information could be included in the political position section of the article about Mitt Romney. Proposals by well-known senators will always be covered by the media and, when they have no real chance of passing, will soon be forgotten (WP:TOOSOON). - Tristan Surtel (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was just about to start adding to this page to try and save it. It's not even an actual proposed bill? Yeah let's hold off on this one. --Chillabit (talk) 08:45, 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 Joyalukkas. Daniel (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joyalukkas Lifestyle Developers[edit]

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

A non notable company coming under the parent group Joyalukkas. Sources give are mainly covering about the parent company. I did a WP:Before and could not find anything other than some ads. The article clearly fails WP:COMPANY and written for promotional/advertising purpose. The author only created his user account for the creation of this article and removed the PROD tag without proper explanation. Should be merged with the parent company article Joyalukkas. Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-12 ✗ G11
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Joyalukkas: The article content is largely about the Group as are the references and searche results about projects under this subsidiary. No evidence of distinct notability. AllyD (talk) 10:22, 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 no consensus. Minimal value in relisting this a third time. Daniel (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bashy Quraishy[edit]

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

This was "kept" in 2007, but not with very good arguments--pretty much everything was kept in those days. Citations that were supposed to prove notability were things like this one, a few short quotes in a short newspaper piece--that's not in-depth discussion of the person in a reliable source. The article itself is still a vanity piece where the basic facts which are supposed to prove his notability aren't even properly verified. One of the old "keep" arguments was "he's a former politician"--which wasn't verified, let alone whether he was notable by our politician standards. Essentially, we have a few hits in a few newspaper articles that verify that...well, that he said things to newspapers. There are no newspaper articles that prove that he is or was actually someone who is notable. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chair of Euope's biggest anti-racism network for six years, makes him a relatively significant European-level activist, Google books turns up significant number of works published in Danish and English, quoted regularly as an expert on racism issues in Danmark and further afield, very simple searching verifies all the basic elements in the article, some sourcing below, including two page biographical survey from Brookings Institute Press on Islam in Europe.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ "'Take your money, get out of Denmark and don't come back'". Ageing Equal. 16 November 2018.
  2. ^ "Education is 'key to success' for British Pakistanis, meeting in Bradford hears". Bradford Telegraph and Argus. 18 October 2019.
  3. ^ "Denmark: fading out ghettoes". The Interpreter. 4 July 2018.
  4. ^ Kantor, Alice. "'Muslim women are being yelled at for wearing a veil'". www.aljazeera.com.
  5. ^ "Tone down speeches to avoid hate crime, MEP candidates told". the Guardian. 18 May 2019.
  6. ^ Ahmed, Akbar. Journey into Europe: Islam, Immigration, and Identity. Brookings Institution Press. pp. 236–237. ISBN 978-0-8157-2759-0.
regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be enough significance and relevant information about this person. - Wakemeup38 (talk) 01:34, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Tukiqi[edit]

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

The singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject was singing in Albania long before the internet, achieved international recognition and was given significant awards. Mccapra (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as he has received a notable and national award and has multiple coverage in reliable book sources already in the article, passes WP:Anybio in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that the awards received are significant. Clearly a prominent singer at the time. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:59, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_February_28&oldid=1011281643"