Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 08	February 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fazillah Abdul Gaffa[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even remotely close to enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No GNG claim. Kolma8 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only source is written by the subject. Fails GNG. — Eliyr [ talk ] 07:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we need people writing about her to show that she is notable. I found no secondary sources about her in a search. Writing articles in publications, even if those publications themselves are notable, does not make you notable. If that were the case, then we would be flooded with articles from people who wrote one article for The Times but whom we know absolutely nothing about otherwise. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable --Devoke water 14:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Homak Mfg. Co. Inc.[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG OR WP:NCORP / WP:ORGCRIT. Sources in the article do not have WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 10:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 10:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 10:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:MILL. There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of sheet metal manufacturers. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I appreciate your opinion, but Homak was not just a sheet metal factory among thousands of others, but the largest privately-owned factory in the US in that period. Media coverage, as we know it today, was not available back then. All media coverage this factory received is probably in the printed newspapers, which is not available for citations. I really tried my best to source it as much as possible, but since the company is defuncted it is quite hard to find sources your said are needed. --Swipex (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — The Earwig ^talk 01:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify With some sympathy to Swipex's efforts to find sources, as an alternative to Deletion and on the assumption that Swipex and/or others might continue to look for more references, I recommend that the article is draftified to allow for more sources to be found. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing:: I found an interesting court case involving Homak, but I am not sure (and I can't find it in guidelines for reliable sources) if such sources are valid (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1189146.html). The case was later cited in other verdicts, such as here, here and here. As I said, I did not paid such attention to this before, so I am asking you for an assistance on this. --Swipex (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Court cases might cause other publications to write good articles which establish notability, but the information provided about the company is often provided by the company itself and therefore is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If sources are found an article couldbe written, but I see no reason to assume they will be. [[User:Swi[pex|Swi[pex]], you state "the largest privately owned company", but the article only says, and the sources only document "as amongst the largest privately held sheet metal companies in the US... in the 1990s. " That's much less of a clai,/ DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Little Children of Jesus Christ[edit]

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

Not a hundred percent sure what to make of this, frankly. Long-term (since July 2009) tagged for notability; WP:BEFORE gives nothing, while the sources cited in the article are inaccessible and the statements they give not particularly enticing. I'm bringing this to AfD rather than prodding it because while it certainly looks like a deletion candidate, I can't say I'm sure what's going on here. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete All the references to the name I found were obviously taken from or were indiscriminate lists of denominations without any information beyond the name. It's impossible to tell whether this is more than a single congregation. Mangoe (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article claims it is present in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions. If that is true, then this would be a bona fide denomination which existed at some point, whether or not it still does. (I have read his encyclopedia in the past, but I don't have access to a copy of it any more.) However, Melton's criteria for inclusion are really low, he includes defunct fringe groups who only ever had a handful of followers, all he seems to really demand is that (a) he has good reason to believe that it exists (or used to exist) (b) it is a bona fide group, however small, as opposed to just a single lone individual. So, if the only RS for a group is inclusion in Melton's Encyclopedia, possibly that is not enough for Wikipedia notability. Also, I doubt most of the facts from this article come from Melton's Encyclopedia, since his article on a group like this would be much briefer. So if we were to keep this article on the basis of Melton's Encyclopedia, most of the content would be gone. And maybe at that point it might be better merged into some sort of list of "small denominations for which we have a reliable source for their existence but not enough reliably-sourced info to actually make an article" Mr248 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Delete -- This is a denomination, which I might have voted to keep, but a denomination with 100 members in 8 congregations is surely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Foot[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about him. Störm (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please consider sending players from English teams to WT:CRIC first. There will be people who can find information from more places than myself. Bobo . 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just because you are incapable of finding information yourself does not mean it doesn't exist. AfD should never be the reflex reaction. AfD debates are not the way to get articles improved. Take these issues to other places first. Bobo . 10:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is a proactive guideline that must be passed by all articles. We do not keep articles just because people think there might be sourcing, we keep them because sourcing has been identified. Keeping an article on a vague claim that sources are out there somewhere inherently violates verrifiability and opens us up to hoaxes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If people want sources to be found they need to go to the proper place to ask and/or find them. Refusal to do so shows a lack of will to interact with the community. Bobo . 18:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A wholly non-notable figure in the context of a broad encyclopaedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search for references did not find any. The hurdle is WP:NCRICKET and even without references nothing in the article suggest he meets it. Jeepday (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable player. Tbyros (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded matches, minor counties cricket does not meet this standard. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found and no reason to expect that any exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability. lack of references. LucyLucy (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Byck[edit]

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

Article appears to have been largely written by the subject, completely unsourced with the only source listed returning a 404 error Dexxtrall (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, WP:OR, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:TNT. We have deleted so many articles about filmmakers because so many of them, to be blunt, are NN and run of the mill like this subject. We have never published original research in 20 years. Whether in 2012 or 2021, everybody has known you can't edit your own article, and it's so poorly written you'd think it was not edited by someone with a college degree. If it is kept, this will require a lot of copyediting. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clearly a non-notable film director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable film director. Tbyros (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable film director. lack of reliable references. LucyLucy (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his documentary Carbon Nation is notable but I'm not seeing any notability inherited by Byck for him to warrant an article himself. Even if he did somehow pass one of our guidelines, the article would need a complete overhaul as it is currently a CV and not an encyclopaedia article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Francois[edit]

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

The article falls very short of WP:BIO. Capt. Milokan (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable weight lifter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Note that competing at a Commonwealth Games doesn't make them inherently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page Ahead[edit]

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

Non notable NGO that’s fails to satisfy WP:NGO as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE search shows hits in primary sources and other user generated and self published sources which we do count as reliable as they aren’t independent of the NGO. A review of most of the sources used in the article all pr sponsored, press releases, and mere announcements. Celestina007 (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some is able to find in depth coverage in RIS that I’m not seeing. Mccapra (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per lacking sources. Tbyros (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage.LucyLucy (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MG15 (band)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing in the article is dreadful, none of the sites are reliable. (The "Download Full Discography - Hacking and Spread" link is particularly outrageous imo), Metal Archives is not a reliable source, their official site is not a reliable source, and the Spanish-language site (which looks reliable) are not even about them at all. The name of the singer is mentioned during the candidates and that's it. Tagged for notability and sources since 2020, I am not surprised since the sourcing is crappy beyond belief. But I couldn't find anything that establishes notability during a Google search, I only found the standard retail sites, databases, blogs, download links, Wikipedia mirrors and youtube videos. No evidence of notability. Another non-notable underground band. There's no article about them in eswiki. Maybe there are print coverage available, but I don't know that as I can't track them down. I don't know how this managed to stay here since 2007 but then again, I am not surprised since there are millions of articles on Wikipedia, it is no wonder many of them (the lesser-edited ones, the ones that doesn't have attention) will get lost. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, nothing to suggest notability. Could not find sources to meet WP:BAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. lack of needful resources. LucyLucy (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Itay Galo[edit]

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

I can't find sources that directly discuss the subject, I can only find passing mentions. Does not pass WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Author has pointed me to two sources [1][2] from the entertainment magazine Pnai Plus which do contain significant coverage. I still believe the available coverage is on the weaker end. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - highly likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for UPE. MER-C 18:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the other language page the extra references and did a search. I don't see anything that meet WP:GNG everything looks like self promotion, nothing in the article suggest they meet any notability criteria. Jeepday (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, sources don't meet basic wiki guidelines. Tbyros (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. LucyLucy (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Umar (Bahawalpur cricketer)[edit]

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

Nothing in coverage, clearly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does GNG mean anything? We need to start actually enforcing it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This sub-standard of articles should not survive for 12 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. scope_creep^Talk 17:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rungh Magazine[edit]

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

Article about a magazine, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for magazines. As usual, magazines are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test is the reception of independent media coverage in sources other than themselves to properly establish that the magazine is externally recognized as significant by anybody outside its own marketing department -- but the references here are primary sources, such as its own self-published web presence and the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, not real third party media coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly PROMO as creators only recent edits are creating this article and adding direct links to Rungh Magazine website in other articles. Unable to find any secondary sources. Slywriter (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. LucyLucy (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wjemather's comment appears to be relevant here. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Ijaz[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 12 appearances at the highest domestic level. StickyWicket (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Ten days ago, I reminded this editor about the closing comments of a past RfC "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". This is one of approx. a dozen back-to-back nominations made today within a 30 minute window, suggesting no attempt at WP:BEFORE was used pre-nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Twelve first-class appearances and a specialist position in the team: would be very surprised if there was no national coverage in Pakistan, especially as his period in his team coincided with its return to top-class Pakistan cricket. Johnlp (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. According to espncricinfo (here), he appeared in four first-class matches (12/28/12-2/21/13) and eight T20 matches (all in Sept 2015). However, the article provides zero sourcing beyond statistical databases. Such databases are insufficient to show that a player passes WP:GNG. The nom's searches (as well as my searches) have turned up zero in the way of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Moreover, and although this AfD has been relisted twice, allowing time for "Keep" voters to uncover such sourcing, none has been presented. A "Keep" result would merely perpetuate a micro-stub consisting of one line of text sourced to statistical databases. My view is that deletion is the correct result; if significant coverage is later found, there would be no bar to recreating the article at that time. Cbl62 (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Okay, once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; all eight T20 matches were in the 2015 Haier T20 Cup, which was not the highest-level domestic T20 competition (that was the Haier Super 8 T20 Cup). The first class matches were played in the 2012–13 Quaid-e-Azam Trophy; the first two were in the round robin qualifiers, with the other two in the "Six Bottom Teams" consolation round – no matches were played in the "Super Eight", which was the highest level of domestic FC competition. As such this fails NCRIC, having not "played at the highest domestic level". Also fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage, and there is no reason to expect substantial sources exist, because none have been found for countless other similar articles. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Is this is even a serious article? The existence of a sportsman regardless of their "appearances" in the sport does not = notoriety. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 14:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mireya Mayor[edit]

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

This is a pastiche of a number of sources, especially [3] , and the cited sources. This article was written as if she were a Media personality, with the references and much of this text all apparently copies of the same press release and bioblurb, presumably written by her or her press agent. There is no true third party verification of any part of her adventures. A typical reference from Google is "has Mireya Mayor had her lips done? Expedition Bigfoot viewers question doctor's appearance"[4] (and as PR it's out of date--she has also written an autobiography)

She is not a faculty member of any university, and never was. She is apparently director of Exploration and Science Communications at FIU[5]

But she is a biologist, and might be notable, but the article would need to be totally rewritten, which I can do if I find an actual CV to establish the objective facts of her life. She did not discover a new lemur species--she has always worked as part of a team as a relatively junior member. - She has been one of the 14 coauthors on a major summary of lemur taxonomy, which was not a formal revision in the taxonomic sense, and she has been one of the 7 coauthors on two papers which have indeed formally revised the assignment of previously known lemurs into a different arrangement of species. This is noteworthy taxonomic work, but not necessarily for the junior members of a group, and I cannot tell from the available material that she was responsible for that work- She's also published other papers, mostly as one of a number of junior coauthors, but some perhaps as the principle author--it will take a more detailed analysis.

Thisis a suitable place by TNT if there ever was. IThe only way to revise the article would be to remove almost all the content and the duplicative PR references DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a lot of press release puffery and no substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any notability/truth to the new species she discovered? Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to be co-author on several papers about the discovery that turn up in a Google Scholar search, this would suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep remove puffery and add concrete references — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOKYO2021 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been little comment since this edit to the article - more discussion required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Ritchie's relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- whether the aforementioned papers constitute notability is somewhat beside the point, because even if one considers her solely as a media figure, she would pass GNG. Not only has she been a host, correspondent, or cast member on multiple TV series from well-known broadcasters (e.g., National Geographic, Travel Channel, History Channel) -- which alone would pass WP:ENTERTAINER -- but her participation in those shows has received substantial coverage from reliable sources (e.g., CNN, NPR, PBS) with her as the focus, and two episodes she hosted were nominated for Emmy Awards. Being the subject of celebrity gossip does not inherently make someone non-notable, nor does puffery in an article (though obviously it should be cleaned up). Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the aforementioned references to the article and cleaned up remaining puffery. The article should now very clearly demonstrate notability. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article now looking good with sufficient citations. Bondegezou (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the subject now clearly passes GNG. - Astrophobe (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I now consider it acceptable, assuming that someone will keep an eye on it to prevent re-inclusion of puffery. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am more than happy to, I'll put it on my watchlist right now. - Astrophobe (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per available references. Passes GNG. LucyLucy (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to George Gissing. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Gissing[edit]

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

I have added some content and a couple of references to this article on the son of George Gissing, but I cannot see enough coverage, and I am not clear for what Alfred Gissing is notable. His achievements as a writer, soldier and educator are mentioned, but none seem especially notable. Tacyarg (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Article about father. It seems that there is some historical interest in him editing and publishing his father's works. Shame, it's a nicely written article about a rather unremarkable person. Slywriter (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to George Gissing as he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS independent of his father and WP:NOTINHERITED. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clark (in Clark, R. (2019). My Victorians: Lost in the Nineteenth Century. University of Iowa Press.) has what is, to my mind, a useful section p161-164 which helps contribute to the case for keeping the article - and the literary importance of his father, and his contribution to material for Gissing studies, means that interest in the son would make this page useful. Merging anything much from here to the article on George Gissing would unbalance this page. Pages like this are too my mind one of the reasons Wikipedia is useful.(Msrasnw (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Msrasnw:Which information beyond the details related to his father are relevant to readers?

Childhood details are about a pension and boarding school, hardly significant details. His military experience seems to be typical of his generation without any extraordinary actions. Marriage and children has only one minor notable detail that his daughter was an Olympic skier (with a very brief article here). And the teacher section contains maybe a notable detail about him founding a school. All in all, a paragraph on his father's page could cover those details while also incorporating the writing section. I struggle to see the benefits for a reader of two articles vs going to one article and getting all the relevant details. Though open to seeing this in a different light.

Note: pinging one time only because not sure if you are following the page. Slywriter (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slywriter:Dear Slywriter, thanks for the ping. My view would be that merging to one article would mean loosing some potentially useful information. For example Alfred's founding of a school supported by Unesco, his view on Holman Hunt, his war service his role in Gissing studies but on the book by Clark (The first thing I found when with the simple checking via Google from the link above) Clark looks at Alfred as a biographer of Holman Hunt (and does not like his biography) , reports on his life.. his being fathers favorite, his abandonment , his army service, his receipt of a government pension – arranged by HG Wells - his documenting or curating of his fathers literary inheritance and has the nice lines:

“Alfred Gissing, it seemed to me, was a Victorian writer living in 1935, minus the doubt, conflict, and tenuous hopes that the best Victorian writers struggled with: what money did and didn't do; what class and gender meant; what the consequences consequences of technology, urbanization and advanced capitalism might be; how or if faith and doubt could be squared.” (p.165) .

He seems to me to be reporting on him. Anyway despite some worries contributing here were about whether there was something I was missing about the author of our article (with their talk pages showing some miss-behaviour which I don’t know the extent of). I can’t see how it benefits the encyclopedia to delete this (which I think merging would involve} and might cost it a bit. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Merge to the article about the father. Just not seeing anything notable here individually. Intothat darkness 16:58, 10 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) 04:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Davy[edit]

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

Biography of a recently deceased actor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, every actor is not always guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because he existed -- the notability test for actors requires some evidence of distinction, such as winning a notable acting award or having enough reliable source coverage about his performances to clear WP:GNG. But the only notability claim on offer here is that he performed the French dub of another actor's performance in a television series, not that he was ever actually seen onscreen in any noteworthy roles, and the sole source provided is his death notice in the newspaper classifieds -- which, for added bonus, fails to even verify the dubbing role in the first place, let alone actually analyzing its significance. And while the French article is a lot longer and lists a lot more roles, it's still referenced solely to the same death notice and still cites no actual evidence of notability-building coverage, so we can't just copy any additional sources over from there either. There just isn't anything here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have made significant contributions to this article relating to some on-screen appearances in French cinema, as well as a complete list of dubbing roles. If this does not change the general consensus that the article should still be deleted then I would be in disagreement.Jmanlucas (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for an actor is not the list of roles it contains, but the amount of reliable source coverage he has or hasn't received about at least some of his performances in the media. So no, you haven't added anything that changes the equation; all you did is add a gigantic list of roles sourced solely to his IMDb profile, which is not how an actor's notability is established. Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is not "he's had acting roles" — it's "journalists paid independent analytical media attention to his performances". Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything in the article nor do I find anything on searching that shows the subject passess WP:NACTOR Jeepday (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB exists for a reason and this is one of them. Nothing notable, not a single critical review of his work. Slywriter (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Suicide among LGBT youth. Up to editorial discretion what, if anything gets merged. At that point, the article can be redirected. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Ash Haffner[edit]

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

Per WP:BIO1E and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. The references are (a) news reports from around the time of the article subject's death and (b) low-quality sources like Heavy.com, blogs, and YouTube. Unfortunately, there are thousands of youth suicides in the United States each year. Articles about youth suicides without extensive WP:SUSTAINED coverage or exceptional historical significance have generally been deleted at AfD: see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Amy Everett, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Rebecca Sedwick, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Sahai suicide. gnu 57 21:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. While the suicide of any young person is unfortunate, this case is not particularly special and does not display any lasting impact. KidAd talk 21:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Suicide_among_LGBT_youth. While not particularly notable on their own, a brief mention of the basic facts/note may be warranted there. Slywriter (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Slywriter, a Merge into Suicide among LGBT youth sounds reasonable. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even sure a merge is noted; while suicide is tragic, this is one of several hundred individuals a year that take their own lives. Oaktree b (talk)

I just thought it would be relevant to the main article. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nelson Stamler. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Finks Investigation[edit]

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

Non-notable political scandal could easily be covered on Leonard Felzenberg or Nelson Stamler. KidAd talk 20:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect probably to Nelson Stamler as you have PRODed the first one.Less Unless (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lodge Records[edit]

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

Creator objected to deletion back in 2006 saying that they were going to add sources to show notability... My WP:BEFORE search is mostly just coming up with stuff about Black Lodge Records. There is a Portuguese record label of the same name but that seems barely notable either. Unless I'm missing something, this fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is the type of total lack of any independent sources that is so common of record label articles. Not every record label is notable, we need sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The label only ever put out one release, by the band Clubbed to Death. Does not rate as one of the more important indie labels per WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They released one album 15 years ago? This is not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and only a few sentences long. Also per Oaktree, one album is not notable. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The arguments for deletion made by the editors above are sound ones. There is no way this label has the kind of notability needed to justify an article on it. Dunarc (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Article without any sources is not notable.LucyLucy (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Linzi Ashton[edit]

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

It is a great shame that domestic violence murders don't go down in the annals of history as much as "random psycho" murders, but we can't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that this was a run-of-the-mill crime according to sources. The name "Linzi Ashton" only yields six pages of results on Google. All news coverage ends with the verdict, apart from this Independent article with a misprinted date, a Sun article showing the update date (not an RS) and one Cosmo article weeks after the verdict. Nothing to suggest that this murder was a particular breaking point in how we look at domestic violence, no new laws made off the back of it, no books, documentaries, series. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to show that this murder rose above a routine news event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing showing she's anything more the victim of a sad but routine crime. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Cabin[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable Hallmark Channel film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, a non-notable movie, fails NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILMS. Ashley yoursmile! 13:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ashleyyoursmile, Kolma8, Johnpacklambert and Bovineboy2008. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HistoricalAccountings - just out of interest, why was this relisted? The consensus seems clear enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone it. A more experienced closer can decide how to proceed. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ukraine Business Journal[edit]

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

I see no indication this is a notable publication/journal, and in fact, I see no evidence that it is a legitimate one and it appears, at least currently to be some sort of black-hat SEO type site masquerading as legitimate journalism. There is virtually no independent coverage of the site and it's only real claim to anything is a notable journalist having possibly worked there once. CUPIDICAE💕 19:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I came to the same conclusion as Praxidicae. Something is very strange about this website. If you navigate to it, it's filled with a ton of cruft that you would not expect in any kind of serious business journalism. The article itself is written with a promotional tone, and none of the sources in the article go towards demonstrating the subject's notability (i.e. they're not reliable, secondary sources whose primary subject is this publication). Mz7 (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also discovered after filing this that the company is owned by an Indian SEO firm called "ASTNT Technologies Pvt Ltd" and it has since been globally blacklisted. I don't believe this was ever a "real" media outlet in the true sense of the word but its definitely not notable. CUPIDICAE💕 19:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went to the website and the first two "articles" are about Jason Momoa and the artist who played Loki in the Marvel movies. This almost looks like a clickbait site. Nothing notable about this. Oaktree b (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. SEO black hat. LucyLucy (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neponset, California[edit]

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

In the end, this does turn out to be an isolated station/siding, but not before going through a mess of topos on which the name "Neponset" moves up and down the rail line a considerable distance. Somewhat later topos show a siding and a single buildings which would appear to be the passenger shelter I found mention of in the only legitimate GHit that turned up. That spot is bare on other maps and on aerials, at least until Dole/Del Monte showed up and plonked a processing plant there. Some earlier maps prefer to label a group of buildings a little to the south, but I found one aerial that showed these to be a pair of farms, the buildings of which were wiped out by highway construction. As I mentioned earlier, Google was worthless, with all hits being either for the Mass. town or for one or more steamships, except for a bunch having to do with earthquake subsidence or the like which only name-dropped it as a locale. No evidence that this was a town. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looked at the Internet Archive, Goggle Scholar, Google Search, JSTOR, Google Books, and so forth and found a lack of anything substantial for Neponset, California. Like Mangoe, I found a number of references to Massachusetts, e.g. Neponset, Massachusetts; Neponset River estuary; Neponset Reservoir; and Neponset Valley basin, along with the steamships and earthquake subsidence. Did find a "Neponset California Mining Company". However, it is named for an incorporated, organized group of California Gold Rush propsectors from Neponset, Massachusetts. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia entry has generated a blizzard of clickbait that is hard to winnow out. Still, there is a notable lack of any reliable source about it ever having been a populated place / settlement or a locale of any signifcance. 02:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Paul H. (talk)

Delete No evidence it was a settlement. A nice summary of its history on this blog. If someone wants to start an article on the community of Martin apparently located to the West and which this station supposedly served under a former name, they can start over.----Pontificalibus 10:33, 12 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) 00:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Gallagher[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. While there are several authors named "Elizabeth Gallagher" they don't fit this person's 1922-1974 life span. The only reference I found of her was her "Philadelphia Inquirer" obituary. A search of her book title on Google Books and the Library of Congress holdings came up empty. Even if it was found a single work does not meet our criteria for a notable author unless it was something unusual like "Gone with the Wind". Blue Riband► 18:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came up with nothing in a search. Possibly (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is clearly not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found her obituary in the Philadelphia Inquirer. pburka (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to USS Hickox. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Hickox[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history#having a military ship named after you proves notability. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to USS Hickox, lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary for GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to USS Hickox as there's no evidence that WP:BIO is met here, or is likely to be. This should be covered in the context of the ship. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Software AG. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metismo[edit]

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

A short-lived, now defunct mobile developer that does not appear to have ever garnered enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG or the more specific WP:NORG. The handful of sources being used currently appear to be nothing but press releases (and the two to "Mobile Entertainment" now link to NSFW sites, so I would avoid checking those). Its "Bedrock" product, which is what the bulk of the article is actually about, also does not appear to have been notable, as there is not much information on it in reliable, secondary sources. It claims that the company won an award, but that award itself appears to be completely non-notable as well. Searching for additional sources turns up a couple of mentions of its buyout by a larger company, but that is about it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Sofware AG article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Software AG. I agree with the nominator that the current article does not demonstrate notability. A redirect seems a reasonable outcome as the History section already describes the acquisition of this firm and its technology. AllyD (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Software AG as an alternative to deletion. Topic does not meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jarel Robinson-Brown[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:BLP1E- he is solely known for comments made about Captain Tom, which is one event. Being a part-time chaplain, and a preacher/minister/vicar doesn't make him notable, and he doesn't pass WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the coverage of his remarks, there is no other assertions of notability. As note by the nominator, being a part-time chaplain isn't something that one would expect to be notable. One event / not news applies in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a throughly unnotable person who made some bigoted comments but those alone do not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a loud-mouth doesn't make you notable. Otherwise he's not even notable in his job. Oaktree b (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a case of WP:BLP1E for a minor cleric, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Urmia[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability since April 2020. PROD removed because "The film has received an award!", but the award is minor. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This documentary film has received 3 awards in 3 different film festivals! In fact 04:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid the film doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:FILM. The awards mentioned are not major.Less Unless (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This documentary film has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as 1, 2, 3 and many other sources. In fact 19:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG/WP:NFILM. The awards are not "major" per WP, so the notability does not stand here. Kolma8 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. 1 and 2 In fact 16:42, 12 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) 00:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seyyed Mohammad Ziaabadi[edit]

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

A thorough internet research revealed that almost all news stories related to his death are copies of exact press release circulated across platforms. Also, there is no other coverage available about him or his works. To me, this article doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Dial911 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NBIO. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:26. 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete per lack of notability. — csc^-1 20:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Livingston[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist,fails to pass WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article does have a number of sources. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the podcast may be notable (and I'm not saying it is), there is not enough in-depth coverage on Livingston to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with Onel5969 on this, although I think the podcast has enough independent coverage to be notable on its own. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Weekend[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unfortunately I do not see any evidence of notability. Also the first AfD here seems to be for a different page, as the page was moved after its first AfD. Garnarblarnar (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NFILM, and claims for GNG don't stand after evaluating every ref's in the article. Kolma8 (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this meets any of the criteria listed at NFILM Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Ricks[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you are unwilling to find information yourself, at least for English-language teams please consider drawing attention to them on WT:CRIC instead, other people will have better access to information than I will. Bobo . 22:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - C&P-ing from Anthony Foot - Just because you are incapable of finding information yourself does not mean it doesn't exist. AfD should never be the reflex reaction. AfD debates are not the way to get articles improved. Take these issues to other places first. Bobo . 10:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not cricketpedia. We require actual verification of the article to keep it, not sourceless assertions that some more sources exist somewhere out in the universe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it any-other-sport-o-pedia, but no other sports are criticized as much as cricket. If you want to do some work to find more sources, please do so, otherwise don't complain that others have done the same. Don't complain just because you refuse to do the work yourself. Bobo . 18:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly non-notable. The concentration of cricket articles might not be criticised so heavily if there were equal numbers of articles about minor cricketers from India or Pakistan, a bias that 'Bobo192' seems quite happy with. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Say again? Equal numbers? You do realize cricket is played all over the world? Bobo . 11:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo192: The article has no sources. Could you provide some? Jerm (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources. If you are not happy with these sources, add other ones yourself or go somewhere you know other people will be able to add them. :) If you wish to replace the words "External links" with the word "References", please do so. Bobo . 17:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It always strikes me as strange that articles go without any prose edits for 11 years instead of people working on them, then those same people complain... Bobo . 17:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding other articles, this one was not made eleven years ago. It was made by you. When I make a stub, I make sure there are reliable sources that meet WP:V. Complaining about others for not contributing is a bit hypocritical when you made an article without sources. That's just pure laziness. I also couldn't find any sources about the individual, and the external link requires payment to view the page. Delete per nom. Jerm (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources. If you are not happy with these sources, add other ones yourself or go somewhere you know other people will be able to add them. :) If you wish to replace the words "External links" with the word "References", please do so. Ever get the feeling you're repeating yourself? Bobo . 18:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo192: There are neither an "External links" or "References" section in this article, so your comment makes zero sense here. Instead of complaining on every AfD and since you claim to be a cricket-subject expert, perhaps you point to where non-experts may find some actual sources? Otherwise, it seems you are putting the WP:BURDEN in the wrong place. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: The external links were removed with this edit. I have reverted and converted the link to a reference, since that is what it is. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I started contributing to Wikipedia eight hundred million years ago, everything was done via external links - references didn't exist. The fact that these articles haven't been touched in that intervening period is not my fault. If you wish to go through articles I've created - most of which haven't been edited in 11 years - go ahead - but with current attitudes towards the project from those who haven't been editing for as long as all that, and have no interest in article creation, they will be deleted anyway. All it takes is for you to change the words "External links" to "References"... it's exactly the same content. Bobo . 20:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo192: Good for you. However you state: If you are not happy with these sources, add other ones yourself. I'm saying WP:PROVEIT: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, which is you. You cannot blame others for not providing something that you have not been able to provide yourself. Yosemiter (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are there. If you are unhappy with the sources, add new ones. If you are unhappy with the way the sources are formatted, format them the way you wish. Bobo . 20:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: Thank you for the clarification. It still does not take away my point about WP:PROVEIT though. If someone complains about others not providing sources, they cannot complain when they don't do so themselves. Yosemiter (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - now that I've looked at online sources, I'm assuming this is the same Clive Ricks who is the manager of the current England Over 60's team. If so, there are plenty of sources. I cannot be certain because all I did was a Google search. But then it does show you that Google searches can do anything you want them to do, and to say that none exists is silly.. Bobo . 19:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems likely they are one in the same, but I see no sources to confirm that. Additionally, there are not plenty of sources as you suggest, at least not substantial ones. There is one about Ricks the over-60s manager, one about Ricks the Cherwell league chairman, but none about Ricks the Oxfordshire minor-counties cricketer. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Fails NCRIC, since minor counties cricket is not the "highest domestic level" even if a match is afforded List-A status by virtue of the nature of the competition and being played against a higher standard opposition. Even if he happens to be the England over-60s manager, this still fails GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or are people just willfully neglecting that he was also the head of Badminton England for many years? http://www.badmintonengland.co.uk/news/badminton-england-appoints-new-chief-executive/ This nomination process is a disgrace. No searching of sources whatsoever by the rogue editor who nominated this. 2A02:C7F:7C1D:E000:E839:E110:A19D:7F2D (talk) 21:51, 10 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. But redirect Rainbow covering to Covering problem#Rainbow covering and conflict-free covering where it was merged to. Sandstein 11:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow piercing[edit]

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

I'm bundling these three:

Rainbow piercing
Rainbow covering
Rainbow minmax gap

These appear to be colourful (zing) neologisms for specific geometry problems that have been treated by only one research group; looks like A. Banik's lab [6]. I can't find any instances of usage beyond the few by this author. If someone wants to make a case for merging or redirecting (to computational geometry or the like), please go ahead, but I suspect the topics are not high-profile enough to make that useful. - Add: I just noticed that there are two well-developed articles Rainbow matching and Rainbow-independent set. These may be suitable merge targets. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, Rainbow minmax gap appears to cite one paper independent of A. Banik, but that on its own is not enough for notability. No prejudice against merging if an appropriate way to do so can be found. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rainbow covering can be merged into Covering problems, as I did now. Though in retrospect I think it is better as a stand-alone page, since it is related both to covering problems and to rainbow problems. --Erel Segal (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My search found a second reference Algorithms and Computation 26th International Symposium, ISAAC 2015, Nagoya, Japan, December 9-11, 2015, Proceedings the article is encyclopedic Jeepday (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeepday: that's from the same authors, again - the Banik lab. We require some use of these names outside of the small group that coined them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. Rainbow covering is already adequately covered in Covering problems. There is insufficient coverage by independent sources to sustain standalone articles at this point. Even merging is somewhat problematic, since the topics seemed to have been treated by a single author's lab's work in the literature. Something like that is not ready for encylopedic content. Nsk92 (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rainbow covering. While the concept itself was studied only by one group, it is related to some well-studied concepts such as "rainbow X" (e.g. rainbow matching) and "X covering" (e.g. polygon covering). So it adds to the general picture of the field. --Erel Segal (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Being related to" a notable concept or concepts is insufficient to establish notability, per the WP:NOTINHERITED principle. To sustain a standalone WP article about rainbow covering we would need evidence of significant coverage by independent sources, which does not appear to exist at this point. The topic is already covered in Covering problems, and that's sufficient under the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable problems that have not received significant coverage in sources independent of the originating group of authors.----Pontificalibus 13:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rainbow covering has already been merged into covering problem; it should be converted into a redirect (not deleted). --JBL (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Powder (American band)[edit]

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

Article about a band, offering no strong or properly sourced evidence that they pass WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim here is that they and their music exist, with no indication whatsoever that they achieved anything encyclopedic with it, and the only footnotes are a fan club website and a discogs.com entry, with no evidence of any journalistic coverage about them in any real media shown at all. As always, every band is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it's technically possible to verify that they existed -- notability requires quantifiable achievements, and it requires real coverage in real media to support them. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge to Phil X. There's a reasonably substantial bio at Allmusic ([7]) and an album review ([8]), as well as a live review from LA Weekly ([9]) and a brief piece that mentions them writing for another band ([10]). There isn't a lot of content here that isn't already in the Phil X article - whether there's sufficient scope for expansion or whether this is best covered in the Phil X article is the real question here. Nominator really needs to take note of WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. --Michig (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom . No evidence of Notability . Fails WP:NMUSIC Samat lib (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appreciate Michig's comments, but the title is not what I'd consider an appropriate redirect as it has a disambiguation term in it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- The problem here is the digital decay of a lot of music media coverage from the '90s; all evidence suggests that coverage existed, the problem is getting a hold of it now. In addition to the above, the band was written up in Kerrang!'s print magazine, via winning the 1999 readers' poll (unfortunately I don't know how to get a hold of the back issue during COVID, but the band's posted a screenshot of the page), and the bio suggests that Kerrang also reviewed either the album or the show (see previous; the quote isn't in that writeup), which would pass WP:BAND criterion 1. (Scuzz would also count if someone were to dig the segment up). Their song being a WNBA/ESPN sync theme (WP:BAND criterion 10) and their Download Festival spot may also count if the external coverage can be dug up. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gnomingstuff. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Livingston[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist,fails to pass WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article does have a number of sources. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the podcast may be notable (and I'm not saying it is), there is not enough in-depth coverage on Livingston to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with Onel5969 on this, although I think the podcast has enough independent coverage to be notable on its own. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Eisner[edit]

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

Non-notable boxing promoter; the only source I can find about him is an obituary, and the article looks very promotional. (Why is there a poem?) Poydoo can talk and edit 16:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 16:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 16:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 16:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. I did find some passing mentions in a newspaper article on Boxing. Nothing close to meeting GNG. Hard to believe this article has survived so long MB 18:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the type of article that makes wikipedia look silly in the media. A poem has no place in an article about a promoter and this fellow fails to hit the notability mark. Down for the punch, pun intended. Oaktree b (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article reads like an obituary. A Google search found no wide coverage by reliable sources. It sorely fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrice Baron[edit]

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

User:Paul Vaurie, the creator of this article, has asked for a discussion on the notability of the subject. Baron does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL as he has never played in a match between two teams playing in fully professional leagues. He has, however, played in a national cup final. With that being said, there does not apparently look to be a wealth of coverage specifically about Baron available. I did a French search in DDG, which came up with nothing. I also searched L'Express and Libération none of which go back far enough. There is this brief article in La Voix du Nord but, ideally, we would need to see more before we can definitely conclude that Baron passes WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For sports related searches, you should search L'équipe. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found some results on France Football ([11]). They consider the final of the 1999–2000 Coupe de France he lost with Calais to be notable. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, these are all comments written by Baron rather than about him. Consensus at AfD is that comments written by the subject do not establish notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There looks to be no exception for cup finals for WP:NFOOTY and I don't think WP:GNG is met. The thing is, there are similar articles like Réginald Becque who have the same scenario but I think (likely) meet GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the other members of that team definitely meet GNG. The only one I'm not too sure about is Benoît Lestavel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to change my opinion to neutral - there is this source: Girondins4Ever, this one: France Football, this one: La Voix du Nord, this one: France 3 Hauts-de-France. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

La Voix du Nord is paywalled so I can't read it but I can't see any significant coverage on the other ones. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both our football notability guidelines and GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I finally agree with Spiderone: the quality of sources found so far is not good enough to meet WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~speedy~~ DELETE Because it doesn't fit ĢŅĢ.--Alcremie (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion: Current sources doesn't indicate that it passes GNG.-Tushar.ghone (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Jarvis (cricketer)[edit]

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

This article about a cricketer born in the 1790s has no evidence of notability-it says he only played one match in his career and there is only one source. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Added a few more refs. In 1826 there was only 7 first class matches played so not much chance of actually playing many games. Nottingham CC have him down as one of their History makers. It's pre Wisden and coverage of sport in newspapers was non exsistant, but as an early player I think there is a case for him to be notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A historically important person in the early organisation cricket in Nottinghamshire, a leading figure in the Nottingham Cricket Club (the forerunner of the current Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club). In many regards, he's like Paul Foley in his importance to a specific county. StickyWicket (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such a claim requires reliable sources to have any weight. Please present them or (better) expand the article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nottingham Cricket Club players. Notts have an excellent set of sources on players at this link, which includes a number of Nottingham players. It's really helpful in determining the relative importance of players and their histories. Jarvis' brother, George, was clearly much more notable (and his article needs more work). Charles, however, we know very little about - compare the two Notts summaries of Charles and George. I think it's reasonable to suggest that George is historically important in terms of the development of Nottinghamshire cricket (although I'm not sure it's entirely clear compared to other players from the same era fwiw); I'm utterly unconvinced that Charles is. The table at the list article pretty succinctly summarises Charles; I'm unsure what else we can really add to that if I'm honest. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to List of Nottingham Cricket Club players or George Jarvis (cricketer). Trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus is an extremely weak guideline, but fails all meaningful criteria for a standalone article, including GNG. No substantial independent non-database sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Davidstewartharvey's rationale. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Nottingham Cricket Club players as a plausible search term. As much as we say thinks like "he is notable" does not meet WP:GNG which is our minimum standards ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I can't find a consensus here about what to do with the various Adamses. Perhaps somebody else can, and if so, they can implement that consensus when closing the discussions at Talk:Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation). Sandstein 13:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The county and townships aren't known simply as "Adams, Pennsylvania", so there aren't enough valid entries to have a disambiguation page here. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and put a hatnote at Adams, Pennsylvania to Adams Township, Pennsylvania (disambiguation) and Adams County, Pennsylvania. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was about to !vote delete and recommend it be replaced with hatnotes, but at Adams Township, Pennsylvania you can see there's another disambig page with three "Adams Township"s in it. While two hatnotes on three pages seems reasonable, five hatnotes on six pages doesn't. jp×g 11:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a chance for JPxG's comment to be replied to and a confirmed future plan of action settled on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge Adams Township, Pennsylvania (disambiguation) with here Obviously, There are not enough entries on simply "adams" to have its own disambig page. However, if we merge the equally unnecessary Adams Township disambig to here, I think that all issues will be adressed .--Kieran207 talk 22:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The township dab should not be merged into Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation) as the townships are not commonly known simply as "Adams". They are partial title matches. There is only one entity for Adams, Pennsylvania — a single hatnote on the page to the township dab and county is more than sufficient for any residual ambiguity. older ≠ wiser 11:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and Adams Township, Pennsylvania into Adams, Pennsylvania; convert Adams, Pennsylvania from a one-sentence stub to a disambiguation page starting with (for example) "Adams, Pennsylvania, or Adams Township, Pennsylvania, can refer to..." ~EdGl talk 19:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The township dab should not be merged into Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation) as the townships are not commonly known simply as "Adams". They are partial title matches. There is only one entity for Adams, Pennsylvania — a single hatnote on the page to the township dab and county is more than sufficient for any residual ambiguity. older ≠ wiser 11:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very confusing disambiguation page. There is a disambigation page in this page (talk about disambiguception) here called Adams Township, Pennsylvania. I think that disambiguation page should be redirected to Adams, Pensnsylvania disambiguation page and the links there to this page too. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Duplicate comment of CAVETOWNFAN removed. ~EdGl talk 21:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge Adams Township, Pennsylvania (disambiguation) into this article per Kieran207. The purpose of a DAB is to help readers navigate; this article meets that, but having the township be a separate DAB makes no sense when it could be handled in one page, it just adds a potential step for the reader, without returning any benefit. // Timothy :: talk 12:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The township dab should not be merged into Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation) as the townships are not commonly known simply as "Adams". They are partial title matches. There is only one entity for Adams, Pennsylvania — a single hatnote on the page to the township dab and county is more than sufficient for any residual ambiguity. older ≠ wiser 11:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As per above merge this and Adams Township, Pennsylvania into Adams, Pennsylvania. SwashWafer (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The township dab should not be merged into Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation) as the townships are not commonly known simply as "Adams". They are partial title matches. There is only one entity for Adams, Pennsylvania — a single hatnote on the page to the township dab and county is more than sufficient for any residual ambiguity. older ≠ wiser 11:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation) or perhaps redirect to Adams Township. A single hatnote at Adams, Pennsylvania for the township dab and county is sufficient. The townships and county are all partial title matches and there is no need to overcomplicate matters with bi-directional hatnotes. In other words, someone arriving at one of the township articles *might* have been looking for one of the other townships, but are unlikely to have been looking for the community or county. The community and county can be linked in see also from the township dab. That is all the merging that is needed. The township dab should remain at Adams Township, Pennsylvania. older ≠ wiser 11:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see only one place specifically called Adams, Pennsylvania. All the others are "Adams Township" (which have their own DAB and should be kept) and then one "Adams County". Just do this: add a hatnote to Adams, Pennsylvania with the link to Adams County, Pennsylvania and vice-versa. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 01:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the sensible thing. The goal is to serve readers looking for what they think will be called Adams, Pennsylvania, which includes place(s) apparently technically named "Adams Township, Pennsylvania". Contra User:Bkonrad (older ≠ wiser)'s repetitive repeated statements, we can do this, this is what serves readers, one-stop shopping. --Doncram (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, my point is that Adams Township, Pennsylvania should not be merged into Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation). As for merging the other way, there's nothing to merge as all the entities are already on that page. There is only one entity named "Adams, Pennsylvania" and any residual ambiguity can be addressed with a hatnote to the township disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 03:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I understood your points completely, as I think did others, and I think it is unhelpful that you repeat repeat yourself. I think it is patronizing and unhelpful to treat readers looking for towns and/or places named Adams, Pennsylvania as if they should know in advance that the word "Township" is required. Having one disambiguation page at "Adams, Pennsylvania" avoids surprises and OBVIOUSLY serves readers better, requiring all to see just one page where it is easy for them to see what they want, as opposed to the alternatives that they may know they do not want. --Doncram (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it is a very simple thing, really. Most townships in PA, especially rural townships, are rarely referenced without the twp part. Sometimes there are settlements within a township that have the same base name as the township, but that is not the case here. Do you have any actual evidence that these townships are referenced as simply "Adams"? So no, it does NOT obviously serve readers better to have the disambiguation page situated at a title which most of the entities are not known by. And there is absolutely no reason for two disambiguation pages — the only ambiguous title is "Adams Township, Pennsylvania". older ≠ wiser 11:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - OF COURSE it is silly to deny that there will be shorthand usage. Of course there will exist local usage in shorthand omitting "Township", because all people including yourself, O ≠ W, use shorthand from time to time. OF COURSE there will be "incorrect" usage in broader contexts where shorthand usage is in fact ambiguous. Okay, for an online example, see Map of Adams Pennsylvania PA, which is selling a T-shirt showing where, technically, Adams Township, Cambria County is located but labelling it "Adams". Can I buy you one? Everyone who votes the correct way in this AFD gets one. --Doncram (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        And why does any of that mean we should change the location of the disambiguation page to an incorrect title? No one will be in the least bit inconvenienced with the disambiguation page at at Adams Township, Pennsylvania. As it currently stands, readers arriving at Adams, Pennsylvania have to click on a link in the hatnote to get to other articles. You've not given any reason for the disambiguation page to be at Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation) rather than Adams Township, Pennsylvania other than sometimes people might incorrectly refer to a township as simply Adams. older ≠ wiser 16:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You asked for example of common usage which you happen to view as "incorrect", and I provided that, and now you want to move the goalposts?
        
        Well, as a matter of fact, it would be better to move the disambiguation page to Adams, Pennsylvania and move the one-sentence (after i edited it down from two sentences) article about the Adams community in Armstrong County to some other name. Probably it should be moved to Adams, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, as it is most likely not the wp:PRIMARYUSAGE of the term "Adams, Pennsylvania". By the way its article has no indication of significance besides that it is a GNIS location...there are dozens of GNIS location articles up for deletion right now. Either way, the single disambiguation page to be created by merger is needed, and moving it is a matter for a wp:RM after this AFD concludes, i guess. I will invite you all. --Doncram (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        My point was that we should not be basing our titles on incorrect usage when we already have established naming conventions. If you want to move the disambiguation page, that's a different discussion and not really within purview of this AfD. There is at present only one article that is actually titled Adams, Pennsylvania -- and none that are truly ambiguous -- the townships are NOT normally referenced without the Township part except by brain-dead websites with some sort of automated routine spitting out spammy nonsense. I'd have no problem at all with deleting the one-line article currently at Adams, Pennsylvania and redirecting that to Adams Township, Pennsylvania, but that again would be a different discussion. As for merging, as I already explained, there is really nothing to merge. older ≠ wiser 20:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I and most other Wikipedia editors, I think, believe Wikipedia should serve both locals who use shorthand when it is perfectly unambiguous (so there will be usages omitting the "Township" and omitting the County name) and also serve newbies and non-locals who don't know how horribly ignorant they are. Here are a couple more examples (which I believe O ≠ W would deride):
        this webpage regarding cemetery in the township in Snyder County which does not use word "township", instead using "St. James Cemetery, Adams, Pa." and "St. James Cemetery, Town of Adams, Snyder County, Pennsylvania"
        
        Another usage of "Adams, Pennsylvania" meaning the township in Snyder County,
        
        Whether or not those are "incorrect" usages by evil-type brain-dead persons or bots, there still exist lots of innocent, good persons who will not be aware in advance that in Pennsylvania, as in some midwest states I think, that "Township" or "Twp" is more formally proper, if not required, in good usage. Disambiguation is not for serving the elite who know everything already and dislike those who do not. --Doncram (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Everyone is served by leaving the disambiguation page at Adams Township, Pennsylvania. Those reaching Adams, Pennsylvania as it is currently set up are still just one click away from the disambiguation page. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to change our naming conventions to suit incorrect usage. In cases where casual usage has become the main usage over official or formal names, then yes, we should follow usage. But that is most definitely not the case here. older ≠ wiser 21:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, don't twist my words. I NEVER referred to "evil-type brain-dead persons". Just stop that crap now. older ≠ wiser 21:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: close related merger proposal and related moves proposals too: There has been a Merger proposal at Talk:Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation)#Proposed merge of Adams Township, Pennsylvania into Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation) ongoing since January 30, opened by User:TimothyBlue(, where O not W and I have now commented. (This AFD should not have been opened; the merger request was outstanding and would implement what several persons above suggested independently.) Also there is now Talk:Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation)#Requested move 19 February 2021 to move the disambiguation page to "Adams, Pennsylvania" and to move the Armstrong County GNIS location over redirect at "Adams, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania", which I just opened to nail down the remainder of the whole problem, formally. This AFD, the Merge proposal, and the Move proposal should be closed together, implementing the general will of !voters above: the correct closures will be "Keep" the disambiguation page, "merge" the Adams Township items into it, and "move" it to "Adams, Pennsylvania". --Doncram (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doncram my merge proposal was from 30 Jan, so this AfD actually predates it from 8 Jan. I was the one that was out of order.

I created the merge discussion when it looked like this was going to clearly be either Keep or merge. It was an error on my part to open a merge discussion before this closed as it only complicates things here. I intended to point to the discussion here, but did not for some reason which is another mistake on my part. If no one objects I would like to close my merge proposal with a explanatory note about this discussion, so that this AfD can proceed normally; the only person to reply to the merge proposal has also commented here.

Hog Farm, I did not intend to complicate this AfD, but I have complicated it. I am sorry for the unintended disruption.

Everyone please feel free to Trout me, except Hog Farm which should substitute the trout with a pig. // Timothy :: talk 22:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No trout (or pig) coming from me. Just a mixed-up AFD that's been ongoing for a month and a half. My recommendation would be to close the AFD as no consensus, and direct all participants to the merge discussion. There's clearly no consensus to delete in this AFD, and I see no reason for an old AFD that's not really going anywhere to take precedence over the (three weeks younger) merger discussion that may result in a consensus. To me, it seems best to no consensus this (I don't think there's a real preference between keep/merge/delete), let the merger discussion finish off, and then go about with the move discussion. I'd recommend waiting on the move discussion until the AFD/merge get sorted out so we know the exact situation with page titles we're gonna have. Hog Farm _Talk 22:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hog Farm, this should be closed as no consensus. This AfD has gone on for an unusually long amount of time and thus we should now consider the aforementioned alternatives. Cheers, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 00:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (move to Adams, Pennsylvania and Merge in Adams Township, Pennsylvania). This best serves readers not knowing formal/official names of places. There are many towns and villages in New York State with the same name and they are listed on dab pages by the common name without the administrative differentiator. Do the same here. MB 23:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus and I do not think a fourth relist at this time is likely to bring about one in this five week old AfD. StarM 21:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hook Lane Arresick[edit]

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

A problematic article. It makes the claim that it is about "Red Hook Lane Arresick"; the first problem with that is that this is a name invented by the submitter of this article, which gets zero gHits apart from this article. The contributor admits on the talk page that they made up the name. There may or may not be such a burial ground. The best we have is John Burkard talking the authorities into making a Red Hook Lane heritage trail, allegedly starting in front of the said Arresick, albeit there is no reference to an Arresick in the John Burkard source. So notability of the supposed Arresick is neither claimed nor evidenced. The remainder of the article - most of the article - seems to be background on a Fort Defiance and the demise of one James Grant who may - or may not, because it is not specified in the article - be one of the stiffs in the supposed burial ground. Whilst the background scores the contributor many references, none of these is tied by the article or the sources to the supposed subject of the article. I have suggested in the talk page reframing the article to focus on aspects that might have support for notability, such as Grant or the Fort; the contributor has declined and instead concentrated on deriding such suggestions. So whereas there may well be crumbs in here that are verifiable, there is not a coherent article on the subject, nor is there any real assurance that the subject exists and nor is there any evidence, at all, of notability. Although these concerns were clearly expressed in a Prod placed on the article, the Prod was removed without explanation by @DGG: who may now wish to explain their thinking in this forum. Tagishsimon (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article, it's primarily about the burial ground and the fort built there and the battle fought there. The fort & battle are the reason for the burial ground , and therefore pertinent information. The sentence added about the trail is minor; and it does not seem a commercial trail (Articles about a historic site or house where the real purpose is background for an hotel or the like are commonplace, , and they usually do get deleted, generally for promotionalism; possibly this article may have been confused for one of those, Everything seems referenced, most of it quite well referenced A question about hte scope of the title is no reason for deletion, Possibly some of the article is duplicative, but that's no reason for deletion either.. (there is a COI here--this is quite near my own neighborhood, tho I never knew about it until today). DGG ( talk ) 10:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: You don't find the made-up name, the complete abesence of evidenced notability of the subject, &c, a problem? And normally articles are about the subject of their title, so an article entitled A which discusses mainly B & C and not A seems a little problematic & WP:SYNTH? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I consider war burying grounds probably notable, if they can be sourced. As mentioned by Capt. JR below, this is not the discovery of random bones resulting from a battle, but a deliberate attempt at a formal burying ground. . As for article name, that is no reason to delete an article, but. to discuss a name. It could be named for the burying site even now, as archeological sites are: Revolutionary War burying ground in Red Hook Brooklyn.(I think that's better than the names proposed below, as being purely descriptive). DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The heritage trail consists of ten intersections in Red Hook where street signs were placed to commemorate Fort Defiance's part in saving the revolution by engaging HMS Roebuck. That and strong headwinds from the same northeaster which 2 days later provided the fog, under that cover Gen Washington was able to move his army across the river without being detected to fight again later. Had Roebuck entered the east river to cannonade the American forts atop Brooklyn heights, this country would not have survived past August 29th, 1776. If the word Arresick is problematic, being a new netherland place name, the used of it here is justified. There are plenty of cites, more than for the stub which exists for Battle_Hill_(Brooklyn). In addition, when it is finally determined where the 256 bodies placed in three trenches near 4th and 7th street are exactly, that proposed article about that burial ground should be called the Maryland 400 Arresick, not the piece of land nearby that is a certified piece of Maryland. for another amateur, the trail led here, a 1823 article by Gabriel Furman here: http://www.thehistorybox.com/ny_city/nycity_your_writer_bklyn_burkard_article000310.htm recounts how Burkard got his info about the burial ground. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to have to tell you that the importance of the battle is irrelevant to this particular article. Most of the material on the battle should go, and I should have taken the time to abridge it. It's another case of the need to work too quickly on potentially deleted article, because of the immense amount of incoming material--and the very few people who check potential Prods, among all the other incoming material I think it's increased lately, to 3. There was a time when I was the only one, and the admins who deleted those just looked to see if the time had elapsed. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't see how a long winded title would make this article more palatable, Red Hook Lane Burial Ground without the background on the battle that produced it would be making the article a whodunit. Man in tree sniped at officer, killing 2, while waiting for signal from two miles away the regiment buried the late col grant and then proceeded to trash the ramparts at brooklyn heights over claims of independence. Later others added the man in tree to a tree hit by lightning. Site later became a heritage trail. Harsh, but succinct. (If it were named Red Hook Lane Heritage Trail, wouldn't all of it be pertinent?) In defense of the use of Arresick. The peninsula that had the point, a Tidal island they named the ROODE HOEK later gained noteriety for a revolutionary war fort built there. It was accessed thru the marshland by an old indian trail later called Red Hook lane by the americans. Part of the notoriety is from an ARESICK along the path, noted for Col Grant, who died during a notable battle of the revolutionary war. ARESICK is new netherland for a burial ground. The subject of the title, a tidal island, is described in the article. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that's not the way WP works. Though it is true that the significance of the burial ground cannot be understood without reference to the battle, the battle cannot be understood without reference to Washington's campaign, the campaign cannot be understood without reference to the American Revolutionary War, and the significance of the American Revolutionary war can be fully understood without reference to knowledsge about United States and British History, and many other aspects of the 18th , 19th and 20th century. We do it with references. The general concept is called hypertext. Where it all has to be explained in one place is in an informative sign about the monument aimed at visitors, as differentiated from an encyclopedia page where links are made to whatever articles are necessary. The sign intrinsically must have it all in one place, an independent article about it in a magazine might well find it necessary to give the background, so its readers wouldn't have to go to a general history or encyclopedia , but an encyclopedia --any encyclopedia --is divided into appropriate non-duplicative discrete articles cross-linked by references. WP not being print, it's particularly well suited for such a structure. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to remove the battle details. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Laying out formal military cemeteries in the aftermath of wars is (I suspect) a much later practice than the Revolutionary War. I would expect the burials to be done in local churchyards or other cemeteries. I have a major problem with the article referring Battle of Brooklyn, which turns out to be redirect to the British Order of Battle at the battle of Long Island. I am not formally voting as I do not know this for certain. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the order of battle (see the lede), due to the layout of that article, precluded a more direct link to the 4th Brigade, Gen Grants command. It lists Lt. Col Grant as the commander of the 40th regiment of foot, which attacked Lord Stirlings retreating forces on the left, thru the marshes and over the Gowanus canal to skirt red hook. (As detailed in the regiment history on page 42 here:^[1]) As to the burials, See the Maryland 400, the section on location described how a contractor found a mass grave trench, N-S orientation so the interred would face east. The bodies were in ordered rows, as a military style burial. The burials were done by locals supervised by the british forces. The nearest church, the old stone church in cobble hill, was too far to transport; as many whom fell in the battle of brooklyn died on battle hill, in todays Greenwood cemetery. Since the battle details were removed, this should be made more clear; that during the advance to set up siege lines on the heights is when this occurred. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://archive.org/details/historicalrecor00smytgoog/page/n84/mode/2up

Delete - This entire article only actually contains two sentences that even refer to the article's nominal subject, the unreferenced first sentence "Red Hook Lane Arresick is a revolutionary war burial ground in Red Hook, Brooklyn" and then after an intervening sentence, "They and the Pennslyvanian rifleman who shot them are buried together nearby on the path later called Red Hook Lane" cited to a dead link that if the URL is any indication (thehistorybox.com/your_the_writer/article_5 - I assume 'you're the writer' is intended) is non-WP:RS. I don't buy into the 'anyplace a soldier has been buried is inherently notable' argument: soldiers being buried near where they fell is part and parcel of 18th century warfare, not something inherently notable separate from the battle. Notability requires significant coverage of the subject, but the only coverage here for the burial ground is a self-published dead-link essay - that's not notability separate from the skirmish that produced the buried bodies, which itself doesn't seem to be notable. Agricolae (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The links were corrected.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The primary cite has this: In his book Town Of Brooklyn, he spoke of the Battle of Brooklyn, and of a lane that wound its way down into Red Hook. He wrote of American snipers hiding in trees along this trail and firing upon the British troops who were pursuing them hoping to cut off their escape during the famous withdrawal General George Washington ordered the night of August 29, 1776. This withdrawal was credited with saving the Continental Army from certain defeat. Mr. Furman went on to write of one sniper who though fully aware he would be discovered, continued to fire at the British allowing his comrades to escape. When he was eventually exposed, he was shot and killed, and his body lay where it fell for a number of days. This was the British way of setting example for the Colonists, to let the American dead remain and rot and have their flesh eaten by the vultures.

Eventually he was interred by friendly locals, in a hollow tree trunk that had been struck by lightning during a storm, this became his final resting place. However he had slain two British soldiers, a Major Grant and an aide during this heroic action. They are also said to be buried at this site along the lane. It is unfortunate, we do not have the name of the heroic American soldier. But it just so happens, the gravesite I mentioned, is only one half block from where this Lane ran on its way to Fort Defiance located at the lanes end and terminating in Red Hook.

Gabriel Furman also wrote in his book, "Many of the minor events connected with this battle and the Revolutionary contest are fast sinking into the shades of oblivion. I have therefore thought it proper to relate this piece of history. Not with the idea that I can be immortalized by the events I relate, but with the hope that my efforts will call forth some nobler pen, to do justice to the memories of many of the almost forgotten heroes of these hard fought battles, and arduous contests" CaptJayRuffins (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So all this source says is that 'the soldiers were buried at a site about a half-block from the lane leading to the fort.' That is not 'significant coverage' by any stretch of the imagination. This is not independent notability (independent of the larger event it was a part of). The last quote doesn't help the way you think it does. Setting aside the WP:SOAPBOX aspect of the argument, his own words suggest that what he describes are minor occurrences connected with the battle, not items of independent notability. A self-published web page essay by a local historical enthusiast simply stating 'they buried some soldiers over there' is simply insufficient coverage for the battlefield internment to merit its own page as some sort of military cemetery. Agricolae (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But now, we have that the arresick was the place where 3 revolutionary war solders are buried. Why contest the fact; that this should be the place we celebrate, due to 'noteriety'- for it's revolutionary war history? I am confused, America is celebrated as being born- due to the battle of Brooklyn, but the place where the battle was fought, and the people that made it happen, should be forgotten because we lost that battle? That a small burial ground should not be significant, historical ground that should be forgotten because no one wrote about it in local newspapers? An enclyclopedia recites facts, this happened, why do you want to delete it? CaptJayRuffins (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An individual editor wanting to celebrate something is not one of the criteria by which Wikipedia established notability. History is actually chock full of things that happened (indeed, that is what history is), but not all of them merit a stand-alone article. The criteria used by Wikipedia to determine which items, places, etc. merit an independent page is notability, and the core notability guideline requires multiple independent reliable sources giving the specific topic 'significant' coverage (see WP:GNG). A self-published amateur web essay making passing mention to the fact that soldiers were buried near a lane does not constitute significant coverage of this 'military cemetery' as a notable location. Agricolae (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the notability of the reference. It was published, in a 'book', dated 1823. the other cites complete the notability requirements. Many things took place outside of meeting 'significant coverage' on the web, so by your reasoning, if it didn't achieve current media standards of multiple independent reliable sources it should be disappeared? 240 years have elasped, so fogeddaboutit? Are you from Brooklyn?

No, I didn't miss anything. There is no 1823 source - the reference described as such is nothing but a web site that makes no reference to an 1823 book. It does mention an 1835 book, that as far as I can tell is also the wrong date, but matches a set of notes written from 1824 to 1838 and published in 1875. It, in turn, describes the British soldiers and the American being buried at different sites, but unlike the footnote claims, names neither of them, describing both briefly, the Brits in a field, what was left of the American after the critters had mostly had their fill in the hollow formed when a tree blew over. Not a notable burial site, neither in terms of being notable, nor in terms of being a single site. Agricolae (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I first read of the 1835 source, but Burkhard relates - "The Town Of Brooklyn" by Gabriel Furman published in 1823.Mr Furman was born in 1800, and died in 1854 on November 11, date sound familiar?.. He was supposedly on a trip to london when he found the book that had the death of Major grant... which ref did you find?CaptJayRuffins (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OCLC doesn't seem to be aware that any such 1823 work exists, but this is pointless. Finding multiple sources where the same author gives vague and passing mention to the burial of some people at different places does not make this arresick, as you have decided to named it, a noteworthy location - the criterion requires multiple independent sources, not all by the same author, giving it significant coverage, not just mentioning that some people were buried in some field and another guy was buried in a collapsed tree's bowl. And wouldn't we need two separate articles here, following your logic? One for The unknown place in some field near Red Hook Lane where two Brits were buried and a second for The unknown hole created by a collapsed tree in which an American was buried near Red Hook. The mere passing mention of a soldier being buried near where they fell does not constitute notability for a geographical location, or we would also have Under the parking lot outside of the Alamo visitor's center, The pit beside the hospital north of the Hazel Grove at Chancellorsville, Everywhere along the entire road between Moscow and Paris during the Napoleon's retreat, and given the fate of military corpses in a grim moment of a later war, Leningrad privies during the siege. Agricolae (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and the lot next to the American legion at 9th St and 3rd ave where the Maryland 256 were trenched after the battle of Brooklyn. I get it, you are upset I called it an Arresick, something that has never been done, ever. I find that when it comes to naming, editors have a lot of leeway so that shouldn't be the basis for deletion. The use of a hollow log for burial, lightning struck or not, makes plenty of sense when viewed like a coffin. As to the cite, I first found it where it was described as 'during a 1835 trip to london, Burkard found the book Furman published in 1823'. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not upset at all- it is just this simple: how notable can a place be if it took a Wikipedia editor to invent a name for it? It was never referred to as a named place by anyone prior to you. (By the way, not a lightning-struck hollow log. The Brits buried their own but prohibited the locals from digging a grave for the sniper, so when a large tree blew over and its roots pulled up a large ball of dirt around them, the putrid and partially eaten remains were placed in the depression thus created, which was then filled in). Agricolae (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the source of the tree depression story? CaptJayRuffins (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another revolutionary war cemetery with 2 soldiers interred, and 3 added Veterans Administration tombstones of other family veterans. This one is landmarked, same war.CaptJayRuffins (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the point is here. Are we going to list every place in America where soldiers are buried as justification for this one page? Anyhow, this cemetery apparently likewise lacks a Wikipedia page, and isn't really the same thing at all: 1) the place in this photo is still maintained as a cemetery, 2) the place has a formal name, rather than just one arbitrarily assigned it by a Wikipedia editor, 3) that it is landmarked imbues it with greater notability, 4) they actually know exactly where it is, rather than just having vague references to soldiers having been buried near a lane. Not the a comparable situation. Agricolae (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, very similar, and it does have a wiki. It started out as a small triangular patch of land, neglected, taxes unpaid, with 2 R.W. soldiers buried with members of their family. Until, the Veterans Administration recognized it and placed 4 new stones on it in 1925. The locals tried to maintain it, and due to their attention, it was landmarked by NYC in 1981. FYI.. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are describing Remsen Cemetery here, as nothing you mention is in the article currently under discussion. If so, describing numerous ways it differs from the Red Hook locale just makes the point that the Red Hook site is much less notable: 1) the Red Hook site has no VA stones, 2) the Red Hook site was never a family graveyard, nor continuously maintained, 3) the Red Hook site has not been landmarked, 4) the precise location of the Red Hook site (or rather, sites) is unknown, 5) the Red Hook site doesn't even have a formal name (or didn't before you decided to invent one for it). Agricolae (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is all very interesting, but we need some more opinions about whether to keep or delete this article now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: merge? Arguments are being made elsewhere that any cemetery, any burial of just one person, is "list item notable" in overall List of cemeteries in the United States (although I don't agree). See current discussion at Talk:List_of_cemeteries_in_California#many_cemeteries_are_not_list-item-notable,_to_be_deleted. But it seems to me this site, whether it is exactly located or not, is relatively significant. Surely it can at least be mentioned at, be a list-item within, List of cemeteries in New York City. That list-article and others in the system don't generally provide detail, references, but I think they can and should. Expand about this one, to get started, in that list-article. --Doncram (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't buy this 'any vague reference to someone once being buried in a general area constitutes notability' argument. Agricolae (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List-item-notability, i.e. what is required by general consensus of editors of the NYC cemeteries article, or of editors of system of "List of cemeteries in ...", can be lower than requirement for Wikipedia individual articles. And mentions in a list-article can provide better context/information. E.g. mentioning this topic in the NYC article (with proper support/footnoting) could be part of providing perspective about where are the Revolutionary War dead, from the NYC area battles and the British occupation-related deaths (including revolutionaries dead from British prison-ship located in area...was it by Staten Island or anchored off New Jersey, I am not sure) during the war, which would be very appropriate for the list article. Even if the context is on the level of describing how life was cheap and disposition of the dead was haphazard, if that was indeed the case. Something like "not much is known about the final resting places of estimated 30,000 deaths in NYC area from the war, but one example is a mass burial of about 30 believed to be in the Red Hook area"(footnotes). Along with mentioning what is known about slave burials in NYC. I do see that African Burial Ground National Monument (where estimated 419 buried, i think all or most being slaves) is a list-item in List of cemeteries in New York City, but there is no text discussion identifying how many cemeteries and which ones had slaves, nor perspective on fraction that is of estimated slave deaths in the city. Likewise to me it would make sense to have some characterization of American Civil War dead, and WWI dead and WWII dead, and comentary about which demographics got formal graves or not, etc., vs. being buried in potter's fields (Hart Island (Bronx) only?) with no info, or not buried at all, etc. ...I rather think there would be sources available RE NYC area burials practices.

It would be a _compromise_, and part of improving the cemeteries list-article, and world-accessible knowledge, to develop along these lines while mentioning the Red Hook info, in that list-article. --Doncram (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the thousands of soldiers that were buried all around the area during the War, mostly where they fell, I can't see mentioning this specific instance as anything but WP:UNDUE, but that is really a different question than whether a stand-alone page on this non-cemetery should be preserved. Agricolae (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae, it's not "a different question". The purpose/requirement of an AFD is to choose between "Keep" vs. "Merge/redirect" vs. "Delete" (vs. maybe some other options), not merely "Keep" vs. all other options. We/you are supposed to consider alternatives to deletion, and a "delete" should not go through if there is a good alternative suggested. Which I think I have done. ATD not being properly considered is justification for overturn of any decision to "delete" (apparently your preference); a closer absolutely should not dismiss the ATD option if there is not proper discussion / apparent consensus. What happened to rebel war dead overrun by British military superiority in Brooklyn seems interesting to mention in the NYC cemeteries article, as part of making that a more informative/interesting list-article. --Doncram (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the fate of this particular obscure soldier is to be considered so representative of the fate of all Revolutionary War soldiers that it is to be deemed interesting/informative on a page about New York cemeteries, then it should be equally interesting/informative whether this page under discussion here exists or not. Likewise, if that particular historical happenstance is considered undue on the cemeteries page, it is no less undue whether this page exists or not. Either way, its appropriateness on the other page is unaffected by the decision made here, making it indeed a different question. Agricolae (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wallabout bay is the current brooklyn Navy Yard above the Manhattan bridge on the brooklyn side of the river below the willyB. The dead from the prison ships anchored there mostly went into the river, (british naval burials..) the monument to the dead, Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument in fort greene isn't a cemetery, there is a crypt which has whatever remains could be found in 1873. The excess prisoners were held in the old stone church in jamaica and some are buried in Prospect cemetery. FYICaptJayRuffins (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? Agricolae (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae is not accepting it, but the point for this AFD is that the Red Hook burial ground can/should be included into the List of cemeteries in New York City, along with that monument, with discussion of Revolutionary War-related dead and other major categories of the dead in NYC (or this could/should be done in sublists broken out from there). And for this AFD, that translates into "Merge/Redirect" being preferred over "Delete", if "Keep" is not accepted outright. And if it is Merged/Redirected, the content of the current article is to be saved, albeit perhaps in edit history behind a redirect, allowing for potential resurrection of the Red Hook article if/when further sourced development is possible.

Thanks, CaptJayRuffins for that information and link. In my view it would be directly appropriate to include that Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument into the List of cemeteries in New York City article, as it includes remains, and qualifies under a general definition of what "List of cemeteries in X" articles should include. As stated at List of cemeteries in California and sublists split out from it, a list of this type "includes currently operating, historical (closed for new interments), and defunct (graves abandoned or removed) cemeteries, columbaria, and mausolea which are historical and/or notable." [A mausoleum is an external free-standing building constructed as a monument enclosing the interment space or burial chamber of a deceased person or people. A monument without the interment is a cenotaph. A mausoleum may be considered a type of tomb, or the tomb may be considered to be within the mausoleum.] The NYC list could very well / should include mention of this Red Hook burial ground and mentions of other dispositions of remains relating to the Revolutionary war, so explaining out that the remains of deaths on the 16 prison ships were mostly buried "at sea". Grant's Tomb and many more items should be added, and discussion of other wars/groups (although some of the weight should be carried by List of African-American cemeteries in New York and List of Jewish cemeteries in New York City). I do see that the broad scope/definition statement given in the California lists is not stated consistently across the system of "Lists of cemeteries in X" articles, but it can/should be. --Doncram (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just last month updated the list of windmills in NY, still visiting/updating those sites. I can get to this, or at least get started with LI.. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rabbit hole, I have been improving the Revolutionary War Heritage Trail and the additional places, a cemetery, the demolished house of Stiles where Gen. Woodhull expired, the memories of Old New Utrecht and Lieut. Col. Grants sword from the Delaware water Gap, I'm busy searching the cites...CaptJayRuffins (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Because I didn't !vote before, and because this has gone on long enough, and the correct resolution is still unclear, and I think I am not confident enough that the article should be removed by merger to the NYC cemeteries list (if merger was tried, it might meet opposition there). Frankly, I think this is best closed "no consensus", and I would hope to see User:CaptJayRuffins and others (possibly including me) make an effort to expand the scope of the NYC cemeteries list and its sublists, to accommodate situations like this. And revisit this AFD in 6 months time, perhaps. --Doncram (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rituraj Kishore Sinha[edit]

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

A non-notable businessman who fails WP:BASIC, WP:BIO. Nobility is not inherited representing a business or holding key positions. It's most likely UPE/COI spam. RationalPuff (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BASIC people ar presumed notable if they have multiple published secondary sources which Rituraj Kishore Sinha has as per below references^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] Kcom2020 The person is also a politician representing one of the largest political party BJP from bihar^[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcom2020 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.cnbctv18.com/videos/business/security-firm-sis-md-rituraj-sinha-says-company-will-report-single-digit-growth-this-year-7737471.htm
^ https://www.financialexpress.com/jobs/the-lockdown-was-the-biggest-skilling-exercise-for-security-guards/2153909/
^ http://www.businessworld.in/article/India-Is-One-Of-The-Most-Exciting-Places-For-The-Private-Security-Industry/12-08-2020-307971/
^ https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/covid-19-impact-2020-becomes-breakthrough-year-for-sis-6211731.html
^ https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/with-festival-boost-and-unlockdown-security-services-firm-sis-india-eyes-growth-pick-up/article33144145.ece
^ https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/india/bihar-jharkhand/bjp-sankalp-patra-is-roadmap-of-atamnirbhar-bharat-says-rituraj-sinha/770871

That's not the full statement. WP:BASIC states that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." A person known for one thing (like one company that is notable) is not notable enough to merit inclusion in a Wikipedia article; that person has to get enough coverage in the news to be presumed notable. Aasim (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual. Those given sources are about Security and Intelligence Services (India). A brief mention in a source, or being the spokesperson for a company in an interview, does not give notability or meet WP:SIGCOV. None of those sources are about him. Any salvagable content can go in Security and Intelligence Services (India). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not DeleteWe do have published material on his personal life, CSR activity he does, humanitarian initiatives he has carried out as well as his contributions to the Indian manpower supply or security industry as a chair person of FICCI. We shall update these within 7 days of period. Kcom2020
- You should declare your paid editing status for this subject. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable as per WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sources mention him, but are not about him. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Article is promotional. 12:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - promotional, does not meet WP:GNG, and of course the UPE thing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fluff, promotional article with no notion of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable businessman, fails GNG. Forbes article was posted by a contributor.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 10:33, 11 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. Meets GNG and has improved significantly since listing. (non-admin closure) — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 19:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Franciszek Zamoyski[edit]

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

~~No evidence of notability.~~ DrKay (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Article has been expanded and sourced since the nomination opened. DrKay (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been without references since 2008, but a search reveals that there is coverage in multiple books. All those sources are in Polish so I can't improve the article myself. In the Polish project there is a bit more information and one reference along with a picture of a statue in what seems to be his grave. I translated the google snippets and they seem to be more than trivial mentions. Mostly about his involvement with a library. Since there are multiple sources with non trivial coverage, WP:GNG would be met in this case, and even though it has not been improved in years, articles don't have deadlines. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote the pieces you think "non trivial coverage" and not related to insignificant facts of being ordynat and a library patron in his fief/lien. Lembit Staan (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lembit Staan: WP:SIGCOV cites "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" as an example of a trivial mention. Building a library cited in many books is not a trivial mention and neither is being an Ordynat as you can check here Zamoyski_family_entail#Ortynats_of_the_Estate. Besides those you can find significant coverage on Poczet ordynatów Zamoyskich which includes a biographical 8 page chapter (pages 101-108) devoted to the subject. I have also added information to the article based on a reference sourced to encyclopedia Britannica that mentions that the subject got recognition of his family title of count by Russia (also non trivial). There is also coverage by the Institute of Polish History, that deemed the fact notable enough to mention and a short biography by the museum of Polish History that includes brief details about his political and profesional career and his place and date of death. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No significant coverage that could indicate notability. Lembit Staan (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Lembit Staan: Please review the sources you asked for. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the article and added three references. I will add some more information from the Polish History Museum reference but I am confident that polish speaking editors will be able to further improve it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Excellent job by Crystallizedcarbon to fix this article's issues, by removing cruft and adding sources and content. Also see this AfD. VocalIndia (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@VocalIndia: Thank you. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD is needed opinion from an experienced Polish native editor Piotrus, So I mentioned him. VocalIndia (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note: also known as just "Tomasz Zamoyski" . Found following sources (before looking at other posts here, some have already been presented): A pagraph-long biography in a footnote in a Polish academic article. I think there is a lenghtier biography here but snippet view prevents me from seeing how long - at least several sentences long. Another biography of unknown length is in this book: [12] (he gets at least a page heading?) There is a lot of mentions in passing. I think the coverage out there is enough for NBIO, with a note that Polish sources are still not well digitized and the odds are 'there is more' that is simply not searchable online for. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 11 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) 04:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The DePauw[edit]

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

The current article cites no sources, and I can't find any sources that make reference to the newspaper, outside of sources that are published directly by DePauw University. As such, there are no independent, reliable sources making a non-trivial reference to the newspaper. The paper does not appear to meet WP:GNG and the group's page should therefore be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time Wikipedia stopped being a lightly annotated guide to the internet and deleted all articles sourced only to the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 9 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) 04:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N. Kariyawasam[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 12 years of having an under sourced article on a person we really know nothing on is over 11 years too long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG and no apparent alternative to deletion available Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naved Bhatti[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not cricketpedia. We need to stop treating it as if it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. fails GNG. Niceguylucky (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective sources. scope_creep^Talk 17:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to North Smithfield School District. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Smithfield Middle School[edit]

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

In the US education system, if something is not at least in part educating students at the high school level we expect really good sourcing. The sourcing here mainly consists of a book published 32 years before the school opened. This article suffers from significant coat racking. A search for more information on google turned up the general information sites that you will find on every middle and elementary school at least for the US, but no reliable sources adding in depth details on this middle school. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I (Extraordinary Writ) nominate the following related page since both pages contain duplicative content and are about schools found at the same address:

Merge and Redirect both to ~~North Smithfield, Rhode Island~~ North Smithfield School District. Neither article contains any pertinent sources sufficient to pass the GNG, and most of the article is about the history of education in the town more generally. As such, the information can be included in the article about the ~~town~~ school district, and the pages can be redirected to that article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC), amended 04:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - but where? I think the best solution would be to merge and redirect both, but to seperate articles. The elementary school (at this time) would be best redirected to the settlement article (merged to the point of creating a listing of schools at the settlement article if that doesn't already exist). But as there is content in North Smithfield High School on the genesis of this school already, the middle school should redirect there. The notability of the high school is marginal, so perhaps the optimum solution is to merge both articles at hand to the high school, and rewrite and move that article to North Smithfield Public Schools, a topic that is undeniably notable. 174.254.192.159 (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to North Smithfield School District. It makes no sense to merge to the settlement when there's an extant article on the school district. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding that - I'm not sure how we all missed it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davemax[edit]

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

Another unremarkable and non-notable producer. A WP:BEFORE search only comes up with the usual Soundcloud, Instagram, Beatport, Twitter etc. Digging deeper, I managed to find this event announcement and this concert announcement. In the article, we have here and here two articles in a local paper, both fairly brief and not making any strong claim of significance. Aside from that, we have two promo interviews on an EDM fan site here and here. There is a bit of hype but nothing to suggest that anything that he has achieved so far in his career establishes notability under WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:06, 10 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) 00:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepal Peiris[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being Cricketpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like he clears the notability threshold for cricket players, having made an appearance for the first-class Moratuwa Sports Club. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial pass of NCRIC, but the presumption of notability afforded is extremely weak for such cricketers, and there is no evidence that WP:SIGCOV exists. Only available sources are wide-ranging databases, which may be enough for inclusion in a list (no suitable one exists to merge/redirect to), but it is not good enough for a standalone article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wikipedia is not a cricket fandom/fansite for every sportsplayer under the sun. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamer Munir (cricketer, born 1973)[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is time we started actually using GNG to guide which articles we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nominally passes NCRIC, but utterly fails GNG. Seems to be no significant coverage available and a solitary match played does not give any confidence that any exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:23, 9 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 List of American supercentenarians#Bernice Madigan. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernice Madigan[edit]

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

I merged all of the text content in this article to List_of_American_supercentenarians#Bernice_Madigan. As far as I can tell, there is nothing more to say about Madigan, so I am recommending a redirect to the list entry which already has all the encyclopedic information about her, to avoid duplication. (t · c) buidhe 13:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect No specific policy was cited to justify deletion, but there is already a stated consensus for articles about people known only for being the “oldest.” Redoryxx (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Not notable for anything except for her age, so redirect per nom and Redoryxx. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cadenasso, California[edit]

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

I keep looking for ones where we can skip AfD, and I keep finding cases like this one, where at least more explanation is in order. The location, now as in the past, has a bunch of small farms and houses around it, and that's kind of the point: it doesn't look like a town now, and it looks about the same no matter how far back I go. Searching is a bit problematic because, surprisingly, there are a lot of false hits, and apparently there were a number of people with this surname spread out over the state who may have and things named after them. I found several references to a school, and indeed, Gudde came through with the information that a Mr. Cadenasso bought a ranch in this area (the name of which figures in another GHit about vineyards) and donate land for said school, thus lending his name to the vicinity. Taking that into account, it doesn't seem to be a notable locale. Mangoe (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few books and booklets published by the Yolo County Historical Society (and friends thereof). The book Yolo County: Land of Changing Patterns is the only one that mentions this settlement:
[Capay Valley Land Company's] plans for a community four miles west of Capay called Cadenasso—on land formerly owned by Nicola and Antoinetta Cadenasso—were short-lived.
It implies in the paragraph that Tancred garnered more public support as a townsite as it discusses its proliferation. This is the only sentence in the book that mentions it by name. Killiondude (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vehemently Strong Delete Yet another one of these useless town stub articles. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:19, 9 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) 05:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Pantelimon[edit]

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

While Pantelimon was named in the Romania squad for the 2003 Rugby World Cup, he did not make an appearance. He made no other appearances at international level and the highest appearances at club level I can find are in the French 3rd tier. Therefore he fails WP:NRU. A WP:BEFORE search brought about no significant coverage on the player and therefore he fails WP:GNG also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some people have argued that being in a World Cup squad but not playing still passes WP:SPORTCRIT. This depends on one's interpretation of the word 'participated'. For me, my interpretation is that participation involves more than just sitting in the stands. If, during a game of any sport, I sat on the sidelines watching, I would argue that I am not participating in that fixture. I think WP:GNG is what we should be looking at in this particular case, as well as the fact that he doesn't actually meet NRU as he has never actually played for Romania or any leagues that would qualify him under NRU. Since NRU and GNG are clearly not met, I believe that this takes precedence over any presumed notability that being named in a WC squad might give. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 9 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) 05:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debris (DJ)[edit]

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

I would agree with the notability concern tag. There is no evidence that he passes WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG also looks unlikely. There is this brief piece with a promotional tone and this adds nothing. The DJ Mag source is only a passing mention as well. During my WP:BEFORE search, the only other source I found was Party Flock, which does nothing to establish notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From what I could find not notable but an Australian dude by the name of Barry "Baz" Francis, who calls himself "DJ Debris", probably passes the GNG. gidonb (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He was removed in 2016 from nlwiki. gidonb (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 12:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Magill[edit]

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

Lacks WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Jenyire2 11:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 11:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be mentioned in a number of books sufficient to satisfy SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received SIGCOV, though the article does need some work with sourcing and maybe a rewrite. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS are present. Intothat darkness 17:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes SIGCOV. Found enough reliable, independent sources with significant coverage.-Tushar.ghone (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Node[edit]

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

Does not pass NCORP. Most of the sources used are just press releases, opinion blogs or articles written by company founders. Funding reports fall under routine coverage and are insufficient to demonstrate notability. M4DU7 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article with a history of WP:SPA development, describing a company's changing business model, funding and sales figures, and setting out their product wares. Several of the provided sources are press releases which have been given bylines to their PR contact. The industry awards which are listed for their products do not appear inherently notable. Searches find coverage of studies by the firm,but these fail WP:CORPDEPTH. There is also a 2016 Times of India piece covering this and other e-commerce startups ([13]). Overall, I don't think there is enough WP:RS coverage to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; quite clear that a lot of time has gone into this but the subject itself is not notable and, as above, it does not pass NCORP Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ionică Minune[edit]

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

Article fails GNG and NMUSICIAN. BLP with no sources. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extraordinary claims require sourcing. We can not just bluntly call him "on of the most respect in the world" with no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rather notable, independent sources do exist, mostly in Romanian: a major daily, another major daily, Romanian Cultural Institue, significant art journal, National Radio, major private TV network.Anonimu (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable Romanian sources identified above that show significant coverage of the subject so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources identified by Anonimu demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paulius Janušauskas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted 7 years ago for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. He definitely still fails the latter and I'm still not convinced that there's quite enough out there to suggest a passing of the former. The three best sources that I could find that mention him were an announcement that he is renewing his contract, this Q&A and this brief quote from him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, just like he did 7 years ago. Never going to be notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I feel it's unfair to salt. He is a little more notable in Lithuania, I can't see much outside of that. I added some sources to the article and linked in other language wiki. Don't know if that changes anyones mind. Govvy (talk) 22:10, 10 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 Greatest Hits: My Prerogative (non-admin closure). D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 15:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. It only charted on the Hot Digital Tracks chart, which is not one of US Billboard's main charts. That aside, this song has not received significant coverage independent of album reviews/discussions, which NSONGS clearly states: Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. HĐ (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greatest Hits: My Prerogative as the song itself does not appear to have received enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to reach the significant amount needed for a separate article. However, there is some (i.e. limited) coverage and this is a viable search term so I think a redirect would be far more valuable than an outright deletion. It's a shame since I actually love this song, but information about it could be easily contained in the article on the album. Aoba47 (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Is the independent coverage from sources like MTV News, Rhapsody, and the "Single Minded" Billboard article, in addition to coverage from the GH:MP reviews, really not enough to warrant a separate article? I firmly disagree and believe this articles passes WP:NSONGS. Carbrera (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

The only okay source you listed is MTV News. I can't verify if the Rhapsody interview was existent. The Billboard "Singles Minded" section is about the songs that made chart debuts of the week, and not focusing on this song alone. Given the MTV source and (maybe) the Billboard source, there is not enough coverage for this article. There is no harm redirecting this to the album's article. HĐ (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with a Redirect here. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Swift[edit]

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

Not my field, so I'm a little hesitant here, but I don't see hoe this meets the criteria for musicians. No songs of albums that charted, No extensive critical commentary. The refs seem mostly announcments are promotional interviews. But I might be misssing something. DGG ( talk ) 10:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - her album charted at 9 in Australia. It has received detailed coverage from multiple reliable publications, not least The Guardian and Under the Radar. Swift herself receives occasional coverage from the likes of Rolling Stone and Sydney Morning Herald (also here) so a stand-alone article is justified, in my opinion, as there is enough out there to show that WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN are met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SpiderOne. Deus et lex (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and bring on the snow (disclosure, article creator). Top ten album, WP:MUSIC#2. ARIA nomination, WP:MUSIC#8, Australia's top music award. Enough coverage in the article and the albums article for WP:MUSIC#1, multiple reviews from large mainstream publications. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above keepers and button up your overcoat--it's snowing. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I suspect you know now you were missing something. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:44, 9 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) 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne's Make 5 Wishes[edit]

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

The whole article is based on four sources, non of them are reliable. Comes off as WP:FANCRUFT that appropriately sits at a fanwiki rather than Wikipedia. HĐ (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is available at the usual retail and promotional sites, but appears not to have received any critical or professional notice. The article has one blog review which does not qualify as reliable, and the comic book series is rarely even mentioned in works about Lavigne's career. There are informal comic notability guidelines at WP:NCOMIC, and some more formalized rules can be found at WP:NBOOK, and this series doesn't meet any of them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:10, 10 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) 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Stace[edit]

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

This BLP cites no sources and has been tagged for notability since 2017.–Cupper52^Discuss! 09:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 09:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 09:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 09:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has four guest appearances from the early 2000s and nothing else, not notable at all. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:49, 11 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) 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chanux Bro[edit]

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

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO. The DoMedia reference is essentially a primary source. This article was speedy deleted as being ambiguous advertising or promotion. It was then subject of a PROD for which the article's creator stated: "i think he is on his field around 10 years and made a huge impact for sri lankan social media and explain technology in sinhala with over 1 million fan base. people should know this stuff. maybe some people will update this page with more info soon." Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not enough sources to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not enough sources to meet GNG.Felixseen (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete this text. Whether the text should be merged or kept is an editorial one and can be decided outside of AfD. StarM 21:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of films set around Easter[edit]

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

The related category is being discussed, and given how that discussion is going, this list needs to be reassessed as well. The problem becomes apparent when the various sub-lists are considered: other than a group of marginally notable horror films punning off the word, there are few—or perhaps none—that are set principally during the Easter holiday season. Even Easter Parade (film) only begins and ends around Easter, presumably as a hook for the Irving Berlin song. Other films maybe allude to the Passion, but then, that's not Easter, and other's I couldn't quickly find even that much of a link for. Meanwhile, I can't see all the biblical epics as "set around Easter" since there cannot have been an Easter holiday until Christians started observing it, not to mention that a lot of them do not include the resurrection. These do form a coherent list (which I presume exists anyway), as do the Easter bunny films, but that leaves us, of the four sublists, with one (the bunnies) which is a specific Easter-related setting, one (the biblical epics) which strictly speaking don't belong here but in their own list, one (the non-genre films) which doesn't appear to have any members that truly belong, and one (the horror movies) which really constitute the only proper membership. To the degree that there's a good reason for lists in the first place, this looks like three separate lists, none of which are this list. Mangoe (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. You appear to be arguing about whether or not certain films can be considered "Easter films", but that is not the title of the list. The requirements to be on it are simply that the film occurs on or around Easter. It doesn't matter if the entire film is about Easter because this is not a list of Easter films but rather a list of films set around Easter. If you have a problem with the arrangement of the films within the list, you can categorize the films in any way that you like. Chronological order would also be fine. The reason why a list like this needs to exist is that there is no category for films that occur around Easter. There is only Category:Easter films, which inevitably leads to an argument about whether or not each film could be considered an Easter film merely because it occurred around Easter. The advantage of a list such as this is that it avoids such needless arguments, unless some user doesn't understand the distinction between "List of Easter films" and "List of films set around Easter" and nominates the list for deletion. As for the Biblical films, I never included those when I made the list so you can't blame the list for their inclusion. If you want to improve Wikipedia, you could remove those entries using the argument that you have given. That argument does not apply to the rest of the list, though. --Nicholas0 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand such a distinction because it is irrelevant. Perhaps a clearer name would help, since "around Easter" means to me "in the vicinity of Easter Day", or even "in which events over the Easter holidays play a significant or even central role". I wouldn't understand it to mean "having anything to do with Easter whatsoever", which is too vague a criterion anyway. As far as removing entries, I tend to avoid doing that during a discussion because it has in my experience led to accusations of trying to game the discussion. If you would prefer to be bold, be my guest. Mangoe (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESAL since I am not seeing any list-based sources that discuss this scope at all. Instead, the sources that are available are only tangentially related and not actually set around or during the festival and holiday. For example, they relate to Christian films in general (especially the Resurrection). We need sources to guide us, otherwise what stops us from making List of films set around Arbor Day just because we can find a few films mentioning it, like the main character's child planting a tree for school? Per WP:NOTESAL, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." I can't tell from this current draft or the sources that I am finding if the scope of this topic is achievable to have on this encyclopedia. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous list of films that have little in common each other, and this is in no way a defining characteristic. As noted, films starring Jesus are not set around Easter, which by definition is a commemoration of the Passion, not the Passion itself. Other than a few of the animated ones, the rest of the list are movies with passing mention to the holiday that don't use it as a major plot point, not even mentioned in several of the articles. Reywas92^Talk 00:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge along with List of Easter television specials to form something like Easter in film and television or List of Easter media or something. The problem here is "set around Easter" which is vague and isn't sufficiently treated as a group by reliable sources. There are a bunch of sources for "Easter movies" although definitions are unclear as explained above. The problem with the "television specials" list is that most of the entries are just links to articles about tv shows with the name of a particular episode mentioned (which isn't actually mentioned in those tv series articles). So that one needs to be pruned, and it seems ripe for merging with this one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Rhododendrites suggests, those are good suggestions for a notable and defining commonality that could be forged from what doesn't seem like a notable or coherent collection. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rename to List of Easter films. That's the category name already. Category:Easter films The List of Easter television specials is for television specials, not films made for home release, pay per view, movie channels, or the film theaters. Wouldn't all fit together, so best to keep the articles separate. Dream Focus 01:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have removed some bad entries from the list, which had nothing to do with Easter just a minor plot point, or the people on Easter holiday for a horror film that showed nothing about Easter at all. Dream Focus 03:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am still inclined to split out the bible epics (and Monty Python) into a separate list and "see also" them. There is a list of films based on the bible but most of the Passion/Resurrection ones here are actually based on novels with a biblical setting, and not on biblical texts per se. That done, I could agree to the rename to List of Easter films outcome. Mangoe (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely wary of "Easter film" meaning anything concrete. The list-based sources I found had mainly Biblical films or even just rabbit-featuring films like Peter Rabbit on them. I feel like what's left are a handful of dramas and comedies with passing holiday mentions and some films that have the Easter Bunny. I think list of films featuring the Easter Bunny is is more realistic than trying to force a title under the scope of "Easter film". Annie Hall is on an Easter-films list, and its well-developed article doesn't even mention Easter. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of sufficient interest, with potential for growth. I lean towards renaming to List of Easter films. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as list of Easter films, only including obvious examples, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Gidonb. I will also trim the list of extraneous or tangential examples. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There's a lot of films 'around Easter', which would mean that even if the article was lengthened, it'd probably never be complete. It could be narrowed to specific topics, like 'Easter Films' or 'Easter Films in (year)', but for now, I don't think it should be kept in it's current form. Bibliopole5795 (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to where? Do you mean rename? The article has already been massively purged since the start of this AFD [14] Judge it as it is now. Dream Focus 09:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant merge with other articles like List of Easter television specials to create a more comprehensive list on films around Easter. I was agreeing with Rhododendrites's proposal. Bibliopole5795 (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's for television, and some of these were made for the movie theater or direct to video. Combine them as one article and its far too long. Best to keep it split. Dream Focus 03:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous sources have compiled lists of this sort. For example, From ‘Ten Commandments’ to ‘Uncut Gems,’ here are 12 great movies for Passover and Easter. So the topic passes WP:LISTN and the rest is then a matter of ordinary discussion and editing, not deletion. Note that we have many lists of this sort and it would be strange to selectively delete Easter from the list of holidays. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a distinction between watching Easter films and watching thematic films on Easter. We don't consider all horror films to be Halloween films, for example. That's why a film like The Ten Commandments should not be sloppily listed as such. At the very least, there seems to be a consensus for that, though I am not seeing much of a list criteria clarified above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it now. Someone had added back in all the non-Easter films I had eliminated previously. I have reverted them. The article is now about films that are about Easter or have Easter as a significant part of them. Dream Focus 14:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with List of Easter television episodes as Rhododendrites suggested. With the latter choice, instead of having two weak articles on Easter-themed productions, we can have one better, beefier, consolidated article that could be re-titled "List of Easter films and television episodes." Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 16:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Split? It is fairly evident from a quick google that films depicting Easter celebrations don't form their own mini-genre in the way that Christmas and Thanksgiving films do. It is rather telling that Rotten Tomatoes has lists of the best Christmas and Thanksgiving movies but not an equivalent one for Easter. A "list of Easter films" would be an improvement over the current situation but even then Easter films broadly break down into two tropes (biblical epics and those that feature the Easter Bunny), both of which would probably be better off handled separately. The category has already gone in this direction: Category:Films about Easter. Betty Logan (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rhododendrites. SK2242 (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't merge as this is an obviously noteable list subject. I see Dream have addressed the noms concern by triming films that less obviously belong, even ones with strong allusion to the passion like Cool Hand Luke. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool_Hand_Luke#Christian_imagery I have never seen the film so wasn't aware of that. Right now the list is Easter as in Easter bunny type of Easter. All things related to the religious Jesus Easter is at List of films based on the Bible. I'm not certain if this film would go to either list. Maybe a list for things that had strong imagery of religious things in them, such as Neon Genesis Evangelion. Have to think of more than two things to put on that list though. Dream Focus 17:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, even Mangoe seems to agree the bunny films belong so hopefully they are happy with your immprovements. Surprised you haven't seen CHL, it's a really good movie. But the Christian parts are not really strong imagery (maybe strongly implicit if that makes sense) so I'd agree it's not obvious if it belongs on either list. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. The list could use sourcing and expansion, but that's not a reason to delete it. See WP:BEFORE. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Andrew. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:41, 13 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) 09:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sie[edit]

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

Doesn't pass GNG Pipsally (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNo Sources found, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Manuel[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass GNG or WP:ENT. Essentially a promo paage maintained by an SPA. Pipsally (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pipsally, we can see that it's not a well written article but are we sure he fails GNG?[15] • Мастер Шторм (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, I can use Google too, which is why he's AfD'd. There's no evidence of real notability.Pipsally (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pipsally (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has a decent amount of credits but nothing significant to satisfy WP:NACTOR. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:51, 11 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) 09:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R.S.Venkat Ratnam[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The linked source is an obituary, not sure why but it is published a month before his death. His son is a pretty notable spiritual leader in India though - Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader). Daiyusha (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No evidence of nobility. RationalPuff (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Niceguylucky (talk) 10:07, 11 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) 09:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri andrade[edit]

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

This would appear to fail WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not news, and this man is "a low-profile individual" who received coverage "only in the context of a single event." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLP1E, and any other notability measure. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this meets any speedy deletion criteria. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 05:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Bowl LV#Game summary: Clearly 1E but likely a term to be highly searched. The streaker is briefly mentioned in that part of the article. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 04:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this appears to have been some sort of publicity stunt, I don't think we should even leave a redirect behind. The last thing anyone should want is to see desperate attempts for attention like this one "succeeding," on any level. Better to remove all trace of it from Wikipedia entirely. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not our judgement, imo. For whatever reason it was done, there are reliable sources that discuss it. As I believe you said in a previous deletion discussion, redirects are cheap. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 06:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. As per above fails WP:GNG, WP:BLPCRIME and more. Setreis (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he got major coverage in the news. All the major media have written about him, so he meets Wikipedia guidelines for having significant coverage. Jaxarnolds (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaxarnolds: Please read WP:BLP1E. SK2242 (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am updating my vote to REDIRECT and have added a section here Super_Bowl_LV#Streaking_incident.New vote will be below.Jaxarnolds (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only known for an event that lasted a few seconds. Keeping the name would serve no encyclopedic purpose, and there is a criminal case issue.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG, BLP1e, BLP-CRIME. Momentary fame of this sort is not the same as notability, it's marketing. Non-encyclopedic event. GenQuest ^"scribble" 12:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This content belongs in the main Super Bowl LV article, not as an article on its own. Threedotshk (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. SK2242 (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is he not important, his purpose was to get attention for reckless and irresponsible behavior which having the metaphorical historical plaque of a Wikipedia page would only further incentivize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson Hamilton (talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated for all reasons above, clearly just a one-time notability event that can exist just fine within the confines of the main article. GNG fails for the individual. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up note, I think a WP:SNOW close may be in order here. There's no chance of this going any further. My two cents. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A snow close isn't appropriate given the possibilities of redirecting or merging (especially given that the last two !votes are not to delete). Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and if you need a reason, Ignore all rules. Deleting this article will make Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG for the individual - anything about the moment can be expressed in main Super Bowl article. Redoryxx (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Could earn a brief mention in the Super Bowl article, not much otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to Super_Bowl_LV#Streaking_incident, a new section I added.Jaxarnolds (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing is worth merging/redirecting. Clear WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to Super_Bowl_LV#Streaking_incident. Notoriety for a single event, clear WP:SINGLEEVENT. Field invasion is not a notorious event for an encyclopedia. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect - per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. I do not think a redirect should exist per the BLP guidelines (especially since this person's name does not even appear at Super Bowl LV and the relevant section has since been removed from that article). Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:33, 11 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) 09:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Vogel[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and the sources I can find don't amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS satisfying WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As per above fails WP:SOLDIER. Setreis (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or delete per above. –Cupper52^Discuss! 20:36, 9 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. If anyone wants this undeleted and moved to their userspace so they can continue to work on it, please let me know. Daniel (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Travelers to the Ottoman Empire[edit]

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

Not a reasonable topic for a list article. Many thousands of people visited the Ottoman Empire over its 500 years; the article lists 10, one of whom was born after the polity ceased to exist. Not defining or unusual in any way. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If the person listed here who was born in 1940 had really visited the Ottoman Empire (which ended in 1922), she ought to be listed in Category:Time travelers as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete considering that for hundreds of years both Greece and what is now Israel were in the Ottoman Empire, and that much of what was ancient Greece is in modern Turkey, this was one of the most popular places to travel by Europeans. It also seems odd we only have European travelers on the list, and not American, Indian (consider that at times Mecca was under the Ottoman Empire), Latin American and so forth. Also consider that If yoyu lived in parts of the Austrian Empire or Russian Empire taveling to the Ottoman Empire was not always that big a deal period. Oh, and the Ottoman Empire also included Egypt at least until end of the 18th century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I just realized all the people currently on the list are women. Considering one of them seems to have many traveled to the Ottoman Empire with her more famous traveler husband, this seems odd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see why this is notable enough for a standalone list. Should we have a list of people who travel to every country/region? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually don’t find the topic all that unreasonable, as travelers’ journals are often cited in early history, but I changed my mind when I saw that the list is short and entirely 19th century. If there are further problems with the facts, by all means, kill it with fire, but I would vote differently if we were talking about 16th century Algeria, fyi, for example. And no, of course we can’t do an exhaustive list, but travel journals are rare for certain periods. For instance, much of what we know about early Central Asia seems to be based on Chinese and European travelers. In other words, I agree in this instance but disagree with it becoming policy Elinruby (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conceptually nonsensical. Tiny sample of the many who visited, and with no interesting or even meaningful common denominator between them (that I can detect, at least). Therefore doesn't work as a list, and doesn't offer any particular insights. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep This article, in its current state, is basically worthless. However, it might be salvaged if we turn it into a description of major travels (such as the ones of T. E. Lawrence, Gertrude Bell etc. during the later period) which were influential either in the inner settings of the Ottoman Empire, or in the outer world by exporting Ottoman ideas. Of course, it cannot and should not list every person travelling to the Empire, but notable exchanges of ideas could be described more thoroughly. For this, we could have a division of the article in sections corresponding to major events/periods in which the exchanges between the Ottomans and the rest of the world had a decisive impact on either. ProbablyNovarian (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Edited my judgement, as I found a way to start improving the article ProbablyNovarian (talk) 19:20, 13 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) 09:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the Night[edit]

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

The article only has 3 sources that barley talk about the song. The rest of the sources are album reviews. It should be redirected to its parent album. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though not enough standalone information regarding the song's music and lyrics, it does have an extent of notability, as it was its artist's first Billboard Hot 100 top-10 hit [16] and was certified in four countries (as cited in the article). It was also included in LA Times year-end list. HĐ (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: HĐ makes good points. We should keep the article. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any single that makes the top ten of the Billboard Hot 100 is qualified to have an article. This nomination seems to be more a case of a contributor engaging in a self-deleting fit of pique over some other slight than a judgement about the article itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd never heard the word "pique" used in that way before, and now I've seen it twice in one day, in completely unrelated contexts. Must be the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NMUSIC criterion number two since it has "appeared on any country's national music chart." The Billboard Hot 100 is a recommended chart per WP:CHART. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It also meets NMUSIC criterion no. 3, having been certified as platinum. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The song charted in several countries and has multiple reliable sources. That said, the article easily passes WP:NSINGLE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it passes WP:NSINGLE. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. TheSkinsAdded (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Walking[edit]

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

Not too many reliable resources. Article should be redirected after to Meet the Woo 2. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough coverage for a standalone article. HĐ (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the song may not have charted but the music video indicates notability, plus there are a number of independent sources. I think you are getting a bit carried away here after my previous AFD suggestion. --K. Peake 06:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The song has multiple reliable sources. That said, the article easily passes WP:NSINGLE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is already a good number of reliable independent sources, so it definitely meets WP:NSINGLE. MC-123 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2021
Definite Keep: The coverage on the music video and its inclusion on a list of best rap verses, as well as pieces about the single itself, make its a worthy standalone article without need of merging it into the album article. HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it stands it has sufficient coverage. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bigpencils (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Fallenbaum[edit]

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

This article does not seem to meet WP:GNG and WP:RS. Reference 1 is written by the subject, Reference 2 is a broken link with no results on archive, References 3 is closely affiliated/employer of the subject, Reference 4 does not mention the subject and no results turn up when investigating, and Reference 5 was written by the subject. It does not look like there are any references for subject's notability. Searching through google scholar, books, etc does not seem to give any results for notability. Bigpencils (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bigpencils (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:HEY and WP:BASIC. I have found and added sources, including from the Guardian, Huffpost, and NBCBayArea, that quote Ichikawa for her expert opinion, based on her current role as the Executive Director of the Berkeley Food Institute. I also found two sources related to her high school activism (SFGate and the Berkeley High Jacket) that explore this in-depth. I also added an alumni association profile reference that offers biographical detail that hasn't yet been incorporated into the article. Beccaynr (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (also added: a San Francisco Chronicle profile, a New York Times reference to work by the Berkeley Food Institute and comments by Ichikawa, and an interview with Eater as an expert with biographical information also discussed) Beccaynr (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't interpret the Guardian, Huffpost, NBCBayArea, New York Times pieces as covering or about Ichikawa, but instead just Ichikawa providing quotes in her capacity as Executive Director of Berkeley Food Institute for the actual subjects of respective pieces. I interpret WP:BASIC meaning of significant coverage as more than providing quotes. If you look at footnote7 of WP:BASIC, I think these quotes can be seen as somewhat trivial to Ishikawa. "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail." The subject is not an academic, but I think the rationale behind the notability standard of WP:PROF could apply - "A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark."
- The Berkeley High Jacket is a high school paper, and the alumni association profile has no editorial standards, so I don't think they meet WP:RS. The Berkeley Food Institute and Hyphen references are her places of employment, and as such is not independent and does not meet WP:RS. Eating Asian in America, Threads and the NBC News piece were all written by Ichikawa. The San Francisco Chronicle piece is not a profile, but a human interest piece about tiny homes, and I don't see how that contributes to notability. I do think the SFGate and Eater references are good, though I don't know if starting a club in high school rises to the notability standard and the Eater article isn't really about Ichikawa's work or accomplishments. The article has clearly improved greatly with your work. I still believe this does not meet WP:GNG. This is my first time going through this process, so my apologies if my interpretations, tone, syntax or anything else is off. Bigpencils (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate your analysis, but I disagree with some of your points. The Berkeley Food Institute is academic because it is part of the University of California, and while its description of Ichikawa cannot be used for notability, it can support content, per WP:BASIC, and her BFI bio outlines past work and education as a policy expert, including at UC Berkeley, as a Fellow at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and her MA in International Relations/Food Policy. Per the WP:PROF guideline, "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area," and I appreciate your reference to this guideline as a rationale, because my interpretation of how this criteria relates to notability is informed by the WP:INTERVIEW essay, which states, "The material provided by the interviewee may be [...] secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported." My interpretation is when an independent and reliable source interviews someone as an expert, this is secondary source commentary about expertise that supports the notability of the interviewee as an expert. From this perspective, when Ichikawa is quoted by The Guardian, HuffPost, The New York Times, the NBCBayArea coverage by Melissa Colorado, and Eater, these sources contribute to notability per WP:BASIC when they interview Ichikawa as an expert. Regardless of whether there are sufficient sources to meet the WP:PROF guideline, the non-triviality of Ichikawa's expert opinion supports WP:BASIC, which permits "multiple independent sources [to] be combined to demonstrate notability" - these are not, per footnote 7, "a simple directory entry or a mention in passing," because these are expert opinions.

In addition, with regard to the WP:BIO guideline generally, it states, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be [...] "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life," and my interpretation of this guideline is influenced by the essay Subjective importance, which may be one of Wikipedia's best defenses against implicit or intentional bias and discrimination, even when editors operate in good faith, because the essay notes, "The main point of the notability guideline is to provide objective criteria for inclusion rather than subjective criteria such as importance which depend on an individual's perspective on the subject." The essay also states, "Notability is about having published, non-trivial information (i.e., more than a mere mention) in multiple sources independent of the subject, and the article itself not being the first place to provide the information." For our discussion, I think this applies to the San Francisco Chronicle (SFGate is the website) coverage of Ichikawa's high school activism to establish an Asian American Studies program, as well as the extensive biographical profile of Ichikawa and her family that is included in the San Francisco Chronicle "tiny home" reporting. Per the notability guidelines, it does not appear to be our role to subjectively judge whether this is important enough to be notable, but instead to objectively examine whether sufficient independent and reliable sources have determined Ichikawa to be 'worthy of notice.' I think that even if notability per WP:PROF is borderline, this additional in-depth coverage further supports WP:BASIC notability. Per WP:HEY, I also appreciate your recognition of the improvements to the article - I would not have been able to do it without the coverage of Ichikawa in multiple independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for the response. As for WP:PROF, the guideline states "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." Ishikawa has a handful of published quotations from 2015-2021, so I think my point remains that a small number of quotations does not justify notability and thus does not meet notability for WP:PROF. I have not found many (or any) other quotes.

I am new to this, but it does not seem like WP:ESSAYS are guidelines, just suggestions and opinions that a subset of editors may or may not agree with. However, with WP:INTERVIEW, and as context is important, I think the sources fail based off of this test - "Is the main subject of the interview the interviewee's own life or activities (e.g., a film critic interviews a dancer about their upcoming performance) or something else (e.g., a radio host interviews a physician about the advantages of flu shots)?" The Guardian, HuffPost, The New York Times, the NBCBayArea sources seem to fall into the latter category. I also think it is unfair to call these interviews and to use that standard - the subject provided 1-2 sentences in much longer pieces and there are no explicit questions asked. For example, the entirety of Ishikawa's presence in the NBCBayArea piece is "Nina F. Ichikawa agrees. She helps run the Berkeley Food Institute, which studies sustainable food production. "Urban farms are playing a really important role for elders, for low-income families, for immigrants," she said." The section of WP:INTERVIEW about expertise you quote seems to be related to source reliability, not with subject notability. Again, the main subject of these pieces are not Ishikawa, and the articles do not provide any commentary on Ishikawa.

When you are referring to WP:BIO, what you quoted seems very broad/subjective and my understanding is articles still need to follow WP:BASIC subsection criteria. The Subjective importance is interesting, but again is an essay and seems to be dealing with biases associated with keeping articles, not deleting them. I do not think the standard you cite in that essay supersedes the standard of WP:BASIC. I see the San Francisco Chronicle "tiny home" reporting as a human interest reporting, with reliability issues as described in WP:RS/WP:NEWSORG. I appreciate the resources you linked and your explanations. If the article is kept, I agree with your note on the creator's talk page that it should be renamed to Nina Ishikawa. Bigpencils (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The CUESA piece added is sponsored, which does not meet WP:RS/WP:SPONSORED. The KQED reference again barely mentions Ichikawa, like many of the other sources. The entirety of her presence is a photo with a caption, and this sentence - "But here at the Burroughs Family Farm is an outpost of what Nina Ichikawa, director of the Berkeley Food Institute at UC Berkeley, describes as “centers of insurrection” spreading slowly but steadily across the Valley — test cases in how to cope with the instability of climate change." This falls into the same category of WP:PROF and Criterion 7 and WP:INTERVIEW issues I had above. Bigpencils (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a quick note, per the WP:PROF guideline, being quoted in conventional media as an expert is what the criteria appears to require, so these quotes do appear to support her notability. If your reasoning about the length of the quotes was applied to WP:PROF, I'm not sure how the guideline would be workable, given how experts are typically quoted in conventional media. For the frequent appearances Ichikawa has made in national and local media since becoming the Executive Director of the Berkeley Food Institute, if they are not sufficient for WP:PROF, then I think they are sufficient to support WP:BASIC, especially in the context of the additional independent and reliable sources. The sources that quote her as an expert also appear to be secondary sources in that regard, per WP:SECONDARY, because "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event," and every source that quotes Ichikawa for her expert opinion is using their own thinking to make the determination that she is an expert, which bolsters the notability of her expertise as a result. I need more time to respond to some of your other points, but I wanted to at least start with this. Beccaynr (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:PROF Criterion 7, "A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." It seems to me that Ishikawa has a small number of quotations (~7 between 2015 to 2021), and thus falls short of the notability mark. This guidance seems to fit the situation with Ishikawa. Bigpencils (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point is that the WP:PROF guideline helps show how quotations of an expert, regardless of their length, can support the notability of the expert. The General Notes section of WP:PROF states "It is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of number/quality of publications. The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus," and I think this helps emphasize how differences of opinion over whether WP:PROF is met is distinct from how quotations of an expert can contribute to notability as a general matter, and for the purposes of assessing notability per WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the inclusion of multiple sources where the subject is barely mentioned could be described as WP:PUFFERY, or as put in the essay as a warning sign - "the stilted language resulting when editors stitch together passing references in reliable sources in consecutive sentences to make it appear as if there has been significant independent coverage of the subject". 15:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigpencils (talk • contribs)

Comment The WP:PUFFERY essay warns against using "sources that do not specifically mention the subject," which can create WP:SYNTH problems, and suggests this may happen especially with "non-notable garage bands and college bands," or "individuals who have attained a fleeting celebrity for their involvement in a reality TV show or a highly-publicized brush with the law" or "writers, poets, or other creative individuals." I think this helps support how when the subject is quoted as an academic expert, the sources help establish notability per WP:PROF, and I think by extension, WP:BASIC, particularly due the existence of other coverage in independent and reliable sources that help build encyclopedic and biographical content. To circle back to your concern about the San Francisco Chronicle "tiny home" reporting and WP:RS/WP:NEWSORG, this guideline speaks to general concerns and appears to make a broad statement based on a link to a Salon article about one reporter, and a wikilink that includes the same, and then a print media section that does not suggest that just because there is emotional content that the reliability can be questioned. The WP:NEWSORG guideline does state that "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." The San Francisco Chronicle articles do not appear to be making exceptional claims, nor reporting rumors or reprinting press releases; it further appears to be a well-established news outlet that appears to have a solid reputation, even for what might be subjectively determined to be "human interest" reporting (e.g. What the San Francisco Chronicle hopes to accomplish with its first feature documentary, CJR, 2016). I do think you are correct that my use of WP:INTERVIEW has been a bit misplaced, but I hope I have clarified what I was trying to articulate with my explanation above about WP:SECONDARY. My goal has been to discuss the principles and spirit of the policies and guidelines, per WP:5P5. Beccaynr (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your response. Apologies for not signing my previous post. I believe the section that I highlighted in WP:PUFFERY better describes the list of articles where Ishikawa provides only quotes, and disagree that the essay only has to do with "sources that do not specifically mention the subject" as the opening of the essay says one of the issues is "detailed listings of minor biographical details" but I understand that you disagree. I still think Criterion 7 of WP:PROF, "A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark", almost perfectly describes the quotes in sources and how that it does not mean the subject is notable as an academic, which is what you claim she is. I also think it misses the mark on WP:BASIC based off the 'significant coverage' requirement as there is very little secondary source analysis of the subject (i.e commentary or analysis of Ishikawa) other than the subject's title. I think we have reached an impasse here as I do not think you have rebutted these claims, but I understand you disagree. While I understand what you are saying about the 'tiny homes' piece, I believe WP:NEWSORG takes issue with the editorial process associated with human interest pieces, and the Salon piece is an example of how human interest pieces do not have the same editorial standards. While the piece may make not make exceptional claims, but the question is whether the piece has the same editorial standards as a hard news piece. I would still question whether it meets WP:RS, but other editors can weigh in.

Can you comment on why you included many sources and did not remove any sources that do not seem to meet WP:RS? For example, the CUESA piece you added is sponsored, the Berkeley High Jacket piece you added is a high school newspaper, and the many sources published by Ishikawa or her employer are not independent. In my judgment, it seems like 10 of the 19 sources do not meet WP:RS for those reasons. Bigpencils (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per the WP:NEWSORG criteria, The Berkeley High Jacket has published Editorial Policies that include having an adviser who "Is a journalism teacher that serves as a professional role model, motivator, catalyst for ideas and professionalism, and an educational resource [...] Guides the newspaper staff in accordance with approved editorial policy and aids the educational process related to producing the newspaper [and] [...] will offer advice and instruction, following the Code of Ethics for Advisers established by the Journalism Education Association as well as the Canons of Professional Journalism," and there do not seem to be concerns per the other criteria. As to the piece written and sponsored by the non-profit organization CUESA, I think that can be clarified by editing, but per WP:SQUIRREL, I have been busy with other editing projects, so I have not yet given it my full attention. Beccaynr (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, to address some of your initial and ongoing concerns about references to sources affiliated with Ichikawa, per WP:RSPRIMARY, "specific facts may be taken from primary sources," and per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" and that appears to be how these sources are used in the article to help build encyclopedic content. Beccaynr (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have revised the introduction of the CUESA reference, replaced the broken reference noted in the nom, added a reference from Prevention magazine that quotes Ichikawa as an expert, and added more support for the part of the lead that describes Ichikawa as an 'agricultural activist.' Without counting CUESA, even though it is published in KQED, there are now six independent and reliable sources quoting Ichikawa as an expert, which in field like food policy, seems to help support WP:PROF notability, but also WP:BASIC notability, as noted above. The San Francisco Chronicle, SFGate, and Eater also take note of Ichikawa's personal and family history, which add depth to the article and support her notability as well. Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added another San Francisco Chronicle reference that quotes Ichikawa, a Refinery29 reference that includes a discussion of her essay in Eating Asian America: A Food Studies Reader, an interview with Ichikawa in the International Examiner that helps add chronological detail to her work with AAPI Food Action, and a link to her writing in Al Jazeera America. Beccaynr (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the Refinery29 piece and International Examiner piece offer good support for WP:GNG as they have significant second source coverage of the subject, and along with previously mentioned sources seem sufficient. I will withdraw the nomination. Thanks for your work on the article. Bigpencils (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As there has been significant work done on the article, here is my analysis of the sources as of revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Fallenbaum&oldid=1006753366:

1. Berkeley Food Institute: A non-independent source (subject’s employer biography), does not meet WP:RS
2. NBC Bay Area: Two sentences total with one sentence identifying the subject and one sentence quote. Does not address the subject directly and in detail other than her current position and employer and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.
3. �Huffpost: Two sentences total with one sentence identifying the subject and one sentence quote. Does not address the subject directly and in detail other than her current position and employer and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.
4. The Guardian: Two sentence quote. Does not address the subject directly and in detail other than her current position and employer and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.
5. KQED/CUESA: Sponsored piece with no editorial oversight, does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
6. KQED: One sentence total identifying subject with quote. Does not address the subject directly and in detail other than her current position and employer and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.
7. Prevention: One sentence total identifying subject with quote. Does not address the subject directly and in detail other than her current position and employer and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.
8. The New York Times: One sentence total identifying subject with quote. Does not address the subject directly and in detail other than her current position and employer and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.
9. Hyphen: A non-independent source (subject’s biography at a previous employer), does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG.
10. Civil Eats: A non-independent source (subject’s biography at a website to which she contributes), does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG.
11. Discover Nikkei: A non-independent source (subject’s biography at a website to which she contributes), does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG.
12. Eater: Four sentences the subject with one sentence identifying the subject's title and employer and three sentences of quotes. Four sentences that directly address subject’s grandfather including one quote by the subject. Direct secondary source commentary about subject is very minor (“She is currently working on a book on the topic, and has contributed a chapter to Eating Asian America: A Food Studies Reader.”) Further direct secondary source commentary is about her grandfather. Seems to meet WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV of her family.
13. Eating Asian America: A non-notable book of 20 essays in which subject wrote one. Received no significant coverage. No secondary or tertiary analysis.
14. Common Dreams: Press release with no other published coverage in press, no editorial standards, does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG.
15. AAPI Food Action: A non-independent source (subject listed as part of the team), does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG.
16. Kids First Oakland: No mention of the subject, does not meet WP:V. Additionally, A non-independent source that does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
17. California Farmer Justice Collaborative: A non-independent source (subject listed a member with biography), does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
18. SF Chronicle: A human interest piece in the style section about multi-generational living and tiny homes, and provides biographical information about Ishikawa. Local coverage only.
19. Hyphen: Non-notable article written by subject. Additionally, A non-independent source that does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
20. SF Chronicle: 3 sentence quote about the formation of the Multi-cultural Coalition at Berkeley High School that offers no secondary or tertiary analysis. Perhaps the most significant coverage of subject of all sources as it directly addresses the subject and her work. Local coverage only.
21. Berkeley High Jacket: High school newspaper article that does not meet WP:RS. Does not have nearly the same editorial standards as a professional newspaper, though it does have a policy page. Local coverage only.
22. Cal Alumni Association: A non-independent source (subject’s Alma Mater) with no editorial oversight, does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG.
23. NBC News: Non-notable article written by subject that does not contribute to WP:GNG. The extent of the subject’s inclusion is a photograph with a caption that identifying subject as author.

Overall, there are 23 sources:

8 of which are from non-independent sources which do not contribute to WP:GNG. One fails [[WP:V].
6 in which the subject provides 1-2 sentences which are predominantly quotes, do not address the subject directly and in detail other than her title and employer, do not meet WP:SIGCOV,
2 non-notable articles written by the subject which do not contribute to WP:GNG
1 sponsored piece that does not have editorial oversight, does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
1 non-notable book source where subject wrote 1 essay in a book of 20 essays, no coverage or secondary analysis of book or essay, does not contribute to WP:GNG
1 article from a high school newspaper that does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
1 press release with no editorial standards that does not meet WP:RS or contribute to WP:GNG
2 pieces of local coverage that meet WP:RS and offer any some semblance of WP:SIGCOV that directly address the subject beyond her title and employer. The SF Chronicle article about tiny home living, and the SFGate article about establishing the Multi-Cultural Coalition at Berkeley High School, though it offers no secondary source commentary or analysis on the subject.
1 source from Eater that meets WP:RS and seems to offer WP:SIGCOV of Ishikawa’s family and her grandfather’s experience in internment/concentration camps. Very little secondary source commentary of the subject herself.

As stated previously, Ishikawa provided quotes in 7 sources over the course of 2015 to present. WP:PROF states “Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.” I believe second sentence perfectly describes the subject providing 7 quotes over the course of 6 years. These sources and quotes do not directly and in detail address Ishikawa other than title and employer of the subject - they are about the actual subjects of the article, and thus do not meet WP:SIGCOV required by WP:GNG.

The three ‘best’ articles that meet WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV are from Eater, SF Chronicle and SF Gate though it is questionable how in-depth these articles are about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigpencils (talk • contribs) 22:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Beccaynr. Vikram Vincent 04:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. Also note to closing admin, nominator is acting like a single purpose account for participating of activists articles, Sadads (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not true, please do not lie and poison the well. As you can see from my contribution history, I have voted on a handful of AfD's only in various categories. Please refute the guidelines cited. Bigpencils (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Daniel (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence M. Andrews[edit]

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

Judgeship nomination was withdrawn, and there's nothing else to justify an article. This is a logical followup to the verdict of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Lam Nguyen. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

And I nominate Jon Katchen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reason. We have a small group of editors who focus on United States federal judiciary topics. Some or all of them appear to believe that being the subject of a press release from a certain source constitutes the basis for their notability. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all US federal judges are notable, but only once they are confirmed to sit on the bench. Except Jon Katchen should be redirected to Donald_Trump_judicial_appointment_controversies#United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Alaska. Reywas92^Talk 19:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several other failed nominations on that page without further signiifcant coverage that should also be redirected, including James P. Arguelles, Dirk B. Paloutzian, Sandy N. Leal, and Rick Richmond. Clarityfiend, shall I add these to the nomination? Reywas92^Talk 19:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - A qualified OK if there aren't any more candidates on the list of Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies, otherwise I'd prefer to keep things from getting unwieldy. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I counted 27 failed nominees in addition to Katchen. Some may be notable on their own but my spot-check were all those created only for the nomination. Reywas92^Talk 22:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, unless other bases for notability can be found on an individual basis. BD2412 T 21:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:GNG is met independent of any failed or expired judicial nominations. And I think I created some of these, but I still think they should be deleted because I have a better understanding of WP:JUDGE now. Marquardtika (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and per Reywas92 above. Kolma8 (talk) 21:24, 12 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) 09:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Egg-Stamp (Fabergé egg)[edit]

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

While this Fabergé egg seal exists, there is nothing to indicate that it is notable. The only sources I can find with any discussion are auction sites, so this feels promotional. The two Russian sources used in the article don't mention it. (I came across this via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Shiawase-wo_and_Egg-Stamp_%28Faberg%C3%A9_egg%29_article) Fences&Windows 00:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 00:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 00:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've done some substantial rewriting of this to make it clear what is actually being talked about: it's actually a signet stamp in the form of a Faberge egg. No opinion on notability as yet. My assumption would be, though, that it is referred to in English by a different name. Mangoe (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, delete. There is a Finnish source mentioning the object in passing as an example of how Finns were part of the Faberge shop, and because (I gather) the object is in Finland now. But it clearly doesn't enjoy anything like the fame of the imperial eggs, and there are no English sources that I could find. At any rate the current text is terrible and perhaps quite inaccurate. Mangoe (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than a couple of auction pages I can't find anything to show that this is notable. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how the article establishes notability for a single work of art. Although we don't have a specific notability criteria for objects of art it fails WP:SIGCOV. In general if one has trouble finding sources to support an object's notability than the it likely fails GNG. Blue Riband► 19:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Rob[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Claims to be "Grammy-nominated", but there are no details, and I can't find anything to support it. Even if actually nominated, does that establish notability? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. I believe the claim of being "Grammy-nominated" is made on the most tenuous of WP:INHERITED connections... the subject produced just one song out of 16 on Better (Chrisette Michele album), and the album was nominated for Best R&B Album at the 2013 Grammys. But it's the album and the singer that is nominated in that category, not the producer(s), so if that's the highlight of the subject's career (and having done a search, it appears that it is), then there's nothing to show that this person is really notable. Richard3120 (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Current sources doesn't indicate WP:GNG. Setreis (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with both the users above. --CanadianToast (talk) 20:17, 10 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. Unusual to see 'Support' in a deletion discussion but it’s clear from the comments what is being argued. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Studman[edit]

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

fails NFOOTY and appears to fail GNG, as I could find no SIGCOV of her Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Support. Has not played in a fully professional league. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide a reliable source that says that the W-League is fully professional, especially prior to 2015? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Same as above, Support, Australian W-league is not professional, there for not a played in WP:FPL, contrary to the above. Abcmaxx (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've considered nominating this one myself before but declined to do so as I always believed that someone with 52 appearances in the W-League must be notable enough. Now that it's up here, I've checked ProQuest and found only trivial mentions. The Football Sack calls her "one of the W-League’s most improved players" but doesn't expand on that. I found a name check in a major newspaper. A listing alongside several other players regarding transfers. Lastly, I found one sentence about her in TWG. I had presumed that there must be enough out there to meet WP:GNG but, from my searches, it appears that that presumption was not valid. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://archive.org/details/historicalrecor00smytgoog/page/n84/mode/2up

[2] ttps://www.cnbctv18.com/videos/business/security-firm-sis-md-rituraj-sinha-says-company-will-report-single-digit-growth-this-year-7737471.htm

[3] ttps://www.financialexpress.com/jobs/the-lockdown-was-the-biggest-skilling-exercise-for-security-guards/2153909/

[4] ttp://www.businessworld.in/article/India-Is-One-Of-The-Most-Exciting-Places-For-The-Private-Security-Industry/12-08-2020-307971/

[5] ttps://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/covid-19-impact-2020-becomes-breakthrough-year-for-sis-6211731.html

[6] ttps://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/with-festival-boost-and-unlockdown-security-services-firm-sis-india-eyes-growth-pick-up/article33144145.ece

[7] ttps://zeenews.india.com/hindi/india/bihar-jharkhand/bjp-sankalp-patra-is-roadmap-of-atamnirbhar-bharat-says-rituraj-sinha/770871

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]