Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 28	January 30 >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lai Xiaomin[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP there is no indication that the individual is notable outside of running afoul of the CPC. LaserLegs (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LaserLegs (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm concerned that the interpretations of WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP being advanced here are too broad. Looking at the sources, it appears that the individual was the subject of meaningful media coverage over several years. There was media coverage about the individual's personal life, about media depictions inspired by him, about the initial allegations made against him, and then, finally, the coverage of his execution. Lumping all of this together as "1 event" does not seem correct to me, particularly given the span of time over which all of this coverage occurred. That said, because I don't read Chinese and admittedly have a bit of a tough time appreciating the nuance of how significant the media coverage is regarding this individual, my vote is a only a weak one. DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is he really that significant outside of the fact that he was a billionaire? Tucker Gladden 👑 02:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not what BLP1E means. (BLP1E is second only to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as "most misinterpreted/unread/misunderstood argument in deletion discussions".) As DocFreeman says, the coverage given in this article is not at all revolving around a singular event. This is frankly an astounding claim, and the kind of thing someone wanting to make Wikipedia look bad for its poor coverage outside the West would point to. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly policies such as WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS do not apply here as this article was started back in 2018 and there is a fair bit of coverage. While I am not as familiar with WP:PERP so I won't comment on that (although it seems somewhat similar to the WP:BLP1E argument), I do believe the article passes WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ongoing, international coverage of Lai Xiaomin and his crimes (since 2018) suggests that he should be the subject of an article due to "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role" (WP:PERP). There has been persistent coverage in reliable sources and the subject is not a low-profile individual, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 14:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable 173.88.246.138 (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There exists no article which could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person(WP:CRIM). At best, we have Corruption in China or Capital punishment in China, where this information would appear very out of place. I find it troubling that Wikipedia is repeating assertions of a dead person's character on the authority of a regime that allows only limited defense, especially when some of those assertions are borderline comical, but that has nothing to do with this nomination.130.233.213.199 (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think the subject fails either WP:BLP1E (they are not a low-profile individual as they were the chair of one of China's biggest state financial companies) and WP:PERP (as there is no corresponding article to merge to and the sheer scale of the bribery here is unusual and significant). The subject clearly meets GNG. P-K3 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like I was wrong (it happens a lot). Suggest speedy close as keep then. Sorry if I inconvenienced anyone. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meet WP:NPOL as delegate to the 12th National People's Congress. VocalIndia (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear SIGCOV. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NPOL requirments. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator withdrawal, concerns were met. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historians of the Crusades: the auxiliary sciences of history[edit]

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

This is a more tricky one. First off, this article is essentially just a list of article links, not an actual article. Second, the article provides no context on what exactly it is describing. Finally, no sources are provided, meaning it has verifiability issues. WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note (in fact, most of the checks returned nothing at all). Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angel (therapy dog)[edit]

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

This is just a regurgitation of numerous press releases and social media pages, and frankly, given the prominent links to the plush toys and book (and the owner's salon!), it strikes me as downright promotional. I'm sure Angel was a lovely animal, but this is not encyclopedic. The best source is a human-interest fluff piece from a local ABC affiliate (see WP:AUD for why that's not a great indicator of notability). The rest are blogs, press releases, and unreliable websites. I didn't find anything more solid on a search, either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entire sections of this article breach WP:PROMO and WP:NOTNEWS, with much unreliable sourcing (blogs, websites). With those removed, what is left does not meet GNG. William Harris (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per William Harris's comments and per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG as most of the sources that provide SIGCOV are independent of the subject (if not downright unreliable), additionally as the nom states is skirts very close to PROMO. Cavalryman (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:RS appears to be lacking Jenyire2 19:32, 5 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. Hog Farm _Talk 03:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NACA Technical Note No. 1341[edit]

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

Fail WP:GNG obscure article from obscure publication that is over 70 years old Rogermx (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a total of 10 of these articles here still around [1] with several others having been deleted at AFD [2][3][4][5][6]. I don't see any of these reports being more notable than the rest, could maybe be bundled into this nomination. Thjarkur (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you bundle several articles into one nomination? Rogermx (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource as a public domain government publication. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing here worth transwikiing. This article consists of a slightly edited version of the first three paragraphs, and the last two paragraphs, of the technical note. The intervening 15 pages and the 30 or so pages of appendices do not appear in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the rest of those in the category. This article just a subset of the full 54-page document, so transwiki is not appropriate, not that it's wikisource's place to attempt to log the millions of documents produced by the government every year. Reywas92^Talk 23:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The question is not whether the science described in this technical note is notable. The question is whether the technical note itself is notable as a publication. As no sources other than the note itself have been provided, my inclination is to assume that it isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to warrant it's own dedicated article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Requires more notable sources Jenyire2 19:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Premalo...ABC[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG at all, literally no reviews or coverage in reliable sources before or after its release. Previously PRODed, and the user who created this/contributed heavily to it is now blocked. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 21:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 21:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 21:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot find RS reviews to meet WP:NFILM. Ab207 (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only found one review, but it is not RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No reliable, independent sources. It does not meet for Wikipedia:Notability (films) --Kemalcan (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Ashley yoursmile! 08:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jenyire2 07:54, 3 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Tech Translations and Language Services[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT, written like an advertisement. No reliable sources and a cursory Google does not provide anything of note. In addition, when this was created it was very quickly put up for speedy deletion, and the SD tag was removed soon after by the user who created the article. Very sus. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 21:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References on the article do not meet WP:ORGCRIT my google did not find anything else to add. Jeepday (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article describing a company going about its business, its prior management buy-out,etc., but not indicating what would be its notability here. Searches find routine listings but nothing better. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 6 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nimika Ratnakar[edit]

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

Non notable actress that fails to satisfy NACTOR neither does she possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources thus fails WP:GNG. The sources used in the article do no demonstrate notability & a before search links me to unreliable blacklisted websites which I cannot include in this nomination rationale because of technical reasons. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claims in the article that she would met WP:NACTOR. I don't find anything else. Jeepday (talk) 18:34, 4 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 Mayor of Chittagong as an alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 05:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khorshed Alam Sujon[edit]

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

Non-notable Administrator, local politicians. When last Mayor of Chittagon A J M Nasir Uddin left his office, this person has been in charge until a new mayor was elected, something like Caretaker government. However i don't think this person is notable same as Caretaker government of a country. Also, this person was unelected. Apart from some press release, doesn’t received significant press coverage. fails WP:POLITICIAN. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mayor of Chittagong as a plausible search term, and there develop from scratch a paragraph about him and his interregnum. The WP:CITEKILL obscures the fact that nearly all of the cited sources contain a single sentence about him, basically "Sujon has been appointed administrator of Chittagong City Corporation." WP:GNG says, "It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works." We can't assume that multiple sources containing significant coverage will materialize about an administrator keeping the seat warm. If more is written about him in reliable sources, the redirect can be expanded, but right now he isn't notable.

I don't recommend merging because most of the article was a copyright violation, and many of the inline citations fail verification. In the spirit of WP:TNT, redirect to fresh text. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:38, 5 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) (t · c) buidhe 21:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of bombs[edit]

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

Does not have any sources, and possibly contains prediction. Larryzhao123 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Larryzhao123 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NLIST - I don't see any sources that would specifically mention these as a group. In addition, the sources mentioned in the previous AfD seem to be pay-walled (I can't verify that they do support this list). Use the WP:TNT. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
- Keep per below new points below the list does seem to meet standards as a navigational list, which is a good point - but we should also be in mind WP:INDISCRIMINATE. But, since the article does satisfy the list criteria at WP:WHYN, as a navigational list where someone might go to find a bomb to research (by looking at the list), I change my vote. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:BLUE, we really don't need sources to confirm that pages like car bomb, pipe bomb and neutron bomb are about types of bomb. The general concept passes WP:LISTN as it's easy to find sources such as Bombs and Bombings; Bomb Scares; Bombs, IEDs, and Explosives; British standard bombs; &c. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list that aids in navigation is always a valid list. Dream Focus 06:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets CLN as a navigation list. // Timothy :: talk 13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: per the above suggestions, I have taken the liberty to change the list so that it would better fufill its purpose as a navigational aid. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted you. List can have additional information making them far more useful than categories. A table could be made which list the years they were created in and other information. Dream Focus 15:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I turned it into a sortable table with additional information added from the articles linked to. Dream Focus 16:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These types of lists are very useful and it also passes WP:LISTN.Less Unless (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Don't see a valid reason for deletion. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalier Johnson[edit]

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

BLP that does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NPOL, a search shows routine local coverage of a local politician JW 1961 Talk 23:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable member of a city council.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 3 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 Rayman#Other. Consensus that the topic is not notable. Any useful content from the page is accessible in the page history and may be merged into the target article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman Garden[edit]

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

Non-notable mobile game. With just 1000+ Google search results and 0 press mentions it fails WP:NVG. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect into Rayman. Its existence can still be confirmed by a reliable source so outright deletion is unnecessary per WP:ATD._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Rayman per Zxcvbnm. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per above. IceWelder [✉] 20:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rayman#Other. Its entry is already there and we can add extra/relevant info to "Details". Wario-Man ^talk 07:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. The three extant sources are poor, so there's nothing to merge. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into Rayman. The source used [7] has a Domain authority of 92, and [8] has 52. They are not poor. The content is short because the simplicity of the game, but it gives more content for the rayman general post. Javier Alejandro Herrera Carvajal (TALK) 07:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Merge/redirect as verifiable but not notable. This does have some sources but not WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 15:24, 4 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. Consensus that the topic is notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Road Socialist Organization[edit]

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

The article does not have SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 19:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in John D. Holst (2004) "Globalization and Education within Two Revolutionary Organizations in the United States of America: A Gramscian Analysis" and a reasonable amount of coverage in Howard Brick and Christopher Phelps (2015) Radicals in America: The U.S. Left Since the Second World War. Various smaller mentions in reliable sources, too. Warofdreams talk 21:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Max Elbaum's book covers FRSO. They were also covered during the FBI raids in 2010 by the Washington Post, NY Times etc.--User:Namiba 21:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify. Was leaning towards TNT based on current condition, but I think a rewrite wouldn't be too onerous given available sourcing--mostly just replacement of primary for secondary references. For what it's worth, the current version seems be copied over from the Maoist wikia project, which is licensed CC-BY-SA. Freelance-frank (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could probably be rewritten given how many of its sources are gone now, but you can easily find references to it in news reports proving its notable.2600:1700:24A1:8120:0:0:0:E (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only sources presented are passing mentions, no substantial coverage has been shown. Fenix down (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Gutiérrez (referee)[edit]

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

PROD rationale was I did a WP:BEFORE search and could not find any in-depth coverage. Article itself makes no claim to meeting any inclusion guideline.

Declined because World cup qualification referee, objecting to deletion per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion

There is no SNG for referees but it has never been established that officiating in a WC qualifier makes you notable by default. Referees are currently assessed on whether they meet WP:GNG and there is no evidence that this referee meets GNG as he does not seem to have coverage outside referee database listings and name checks in match reports so no WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that an SNG was suggested here but was strongly opposed. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found 2 passing mentions, but those are far from passing WP:SIGCOV.Less Unless (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is opinion in the discussion mentioned that a good referee is not noticed. That is why the suggestion of special notability guidlines makes sense. I think that referee's credentials probably point to his notability. Keep Кирилл С1 (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide sources that show this notability? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mention in [9], [10], [11]. There is also a mention in google books. Кирилл С1 (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GNG, we require significant coverage which is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. As these are just passing mentions, they do not contribute towards GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corder Crossing, West Virginia[edit]

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

Doesn't look like this passes WP:GEOLAND. Topos show a loose scatter of three buildings generally near a railroad track. Not in a book of West Virginia Place Names. No newspapers.com results. This calls it a locale, which generally fails WP:GEOLAND. Other Gbooks mentions are passing mentions, including one where a Union Army soldier shot himself in the leg trying to cross the river. I'm not seeing a WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG pass here. Hog Farm _Talk 18:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The West Virginia Geographic Names (and other such USGS publications) are much more accurate and it's unclear how errors were introduced in the online GNIS. There's no evidence this is a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 19:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found nothing notable or of significance for Corder Crossing, West Virginia. Examples of representative searches are:

I. Google Scholar - some searches

A. " Your search - "Corder Crossing, West Virginia" - did not match any articles,"

B. " Your search - "Corder Crossing West Virginia" - did not match any articles,"

II. JSTOR - "No results found"

III. GEOREF - "Your initial search query did not yield any results" Their SmartText Searching did not yield anything either applicable or useful.

IV. Google Search and Google Books - I found the same class of passing mentions that Hog Farm reported. The sparse mentions are in the context of the Westmoreland silt loam (soil survey), a coal tipple, same Union soldier, and inconsequential matters. There is a lack of anything significant enough to pass WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Paul H. (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 05:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Brewer[edit]

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

Unknown background singer that fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Only semi notable for her background vocals for Stevie Wonder and Earth, Wind, Fire. This article also uses deprecated IMDB sources multiple times as a references to her background credits. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG and the subject, or someone close to the subject, has had a hand in editing the article. ExRat (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While AllMusic is a reliable source, the others are not, and there is a distinct lack of siginficant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources presented. While Bearian is right about Allmusic being notable, it is notable when the page of the artist/band has a staff written biography. If it's just the basic facts and discography, it is not reliable. Same goes for the album pages: when the album has a staff written review, it is reliable. When it's only a track listing and user reviews, it's not reliable. This case the Allmusic entry doesn't contain a biography, so it's unreliable. IMDb is not reliable in any case. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:RS, and GNG as well Jenyire2 07:53, 3 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 18:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Crossing, West Virginia[edit]

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

Not metioned in a West Virginia place names book. I can't quite tell based on the topos whether the name references a group of four buildings along a road, an uninhabited point where the road crosses a river, or a single building by a railroad track. This newspapers.com reference to someone being struck by a train there suggests the latter. This calls it a locale, and locales generally fail WP:GEOLAND. Other Gbooks hits are for a place in Arkansas, a railroad feature in Arkansas, etc, but not this. I'm just not seeing a WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG pass here. Hog Farm _Talk 18:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The West Virginia Geographic Names book (and other similar USGS publications) are much more accurate and it's unclear how errors were introduced between this and the online GNIS. There's no evidence this is a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 19:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The material found for Smith Crossing, Randolph County, West Virginia is quite underwhelming. Google Scholar yielded only a few false hits, e.g."... J. Smith, Crossing the health IT chasm:..." and "...and MRS. SMITH (crossing to settee)." and nothing of any interest or applicability. Searching JSTOR using different combination of keywords yielded nothing applicable among variable numbers of false hits, e.g. "... for Fort Smith, crossing through the heart of the wood..." Looking through GEOREF resulted in "Your initial search query did not yield any results." and the SmartText Searching provided the expected false hits. Unfortunately, searching Google Search produced an unsearchable tusanmi of clickbait and references to "Smith Crossing" in Africa; someone named Smith crossing a river / stream; The Smith Crossing Water Association Inc. of Mississippi; a Ohio Supreme Court decision, and so forth. Finally Google Books yielded only a number of references to Smith's Crossing in Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Virginia, and so forth. During several searches, the only valid hit found using Goggle Books that is applicable to this article is a "Smith Crossing" labeled on (soil map) Sheet 2 of the "Soil Survey of Randolph County Area , Main Part, West Virginia" by By Roy E. Pyle, Woodrow W. Beverage , Troy Yoakum , Denver P. Amick , William F. Hatfield , and David E. McKinney, (March 1982), Soil Conservation Service. Overall, I found nothing that would qualify this entity as either WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Paul H. (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fishers Crossing, Webster County, West Virginia[edit]

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

Unconvinced that WP:GEOLAND is met here. West Virginia place names book brings up nothing, no newspapers.com hits in West Virginia. This calls it a locale, which is reserved for non-community sites. Topos show a couple buildings next to a ford. WP:GNG isn't met, and I don't think WP:GEOLAND is either. Hog Farm _Talk 17:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The West Virginia Geographic Names book (and other similar USGS publications) are much more accurate and it's unclear how errors were introduced between this and the online GNIS. There's no evidence this is a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 19:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found nothing that would qualify this entity as either WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Using "Fishers Crossing" and "West Virginia" in Google Scholar resulted in 2 hits. First hit is, (Site) "508 Right Fork Holly River below Fishers Crossing" in:

Bowe, N.D., 2003. Development of a GIS Geodatabase as a Tool for Analyzing Spatial Relationships in the Species Distributions of West Virginia Fishes. Unpublished MS thesis. College of Science, Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia.

Finally, the last hit referred to fishermen crossing rivers and lakes in British Columbia.

Various searches using JSTOR found a lack of any applicable sources. Using "Fishers Crossing" alone resulted in 4 hits for "Fisher's Crossing." None of these crossings are located in West Virginia. Looking through GEOREF found no hits. Google Search produced an avalanche of click bait recycled from Wikipedia and a few passing references of no significance to it, e.g. "... power lines were blown down near Fishers Crossing and Route 15..." on page 368 in:

Storm Data, 2005 (July). Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena with Late Reports and Corrections. Vol. 47(7), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).

Without indicating what it is, Fishers Crossing is used as a reference point for coal mine locations in six cases in:

Reger, D.B. and Tucker, R.C., 1920. Webster County and portion of Mingo District. Randolph County, south of Valley Fork of Elk River, West Virginia Geological Survey County Reports, Wheeling News Lithograph Company, Wheeling, West Virginia, p.682.

Further information about the nature of Fishers Crossing might be found in:

Erwin, R.B., 1986. West Virginia gazetteer of physical and cultural place names. vol. 24, West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Unfortunately, I do not have access to Erwin (1986). Paul H. (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the locale having zero notability.TH1980 (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Burkinshaw[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. He seems to have been a run of the mill diocesan spokesperson, and might be deceased. There is an allegation that he has 70,000 followers on YouTube, and growing, which is not verified and not verifiable. Even if it could be verified, I agree with the consensus that having even 8,000,000 followers on YouTube is not automatically make a person notable. According to my searches on my versions of the YouTube and Twitter apps, he has no followers at all as of this afternoon. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 3 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. Geschichte (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Adan[edit]

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

Songwriter who doesn't meet WP:GNG. Her main claim to notability is WP:COMPOSER via She Wouldn't Be Gone, but I believe the comment at WP:COMPOSER saying Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work applies here. Not enough reliable sources to make this page anything but a permastub, as far as I can see. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any potential article that this can be redirected to. Non-notable songwriter. HĐ (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wrote one hit song and manages one non-notable singer. The nominator is correct on how the one hit song fails the requirements at WP:COMPOSER, and her other ventures have not generated the coverage for the WP:GNG notability guidelines. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, although a redirect is cheap. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been Improved. 🌸 Sakura Hana 💖 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1 ref was added, a blog post by the subject? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article fails GNG. We need multiple indepdent reliable secondary sources. A blog post by the subject is 0 of those. This is no where near meeting our even more exclusive musician notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 3 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. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 06:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Kentucky, Kentucky[edit]

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

Another one where the GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick. Rennick's Carroll County directory, index, and his finished book all mention the Little Kentucky River, but none mention a Little Kentucky community. Newspapers.com hits are for the river, an event known as the "Little Kentucky Derby", and a suburb of Jasper, Indiana that is, of course, in Indiana and not relevant to notability of this place. Topos show a pretty isolated place along the banks of the Little Kentucky River. Google books results are for the river. I'm seeing no indication that WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND are met, as whatever was once here shows no indications of having been a legally recognized community. Hog Farm _Talk 17:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There are countless errors between Rennick's handwritten notes and GNIS classifications, propagated here by a blind mass-production without respect for WP:V and WP:N. Even if people once lived by this river and called their neighborhood by that, there's no evidence this is a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 19:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No !votes to delete and a rough consensus that reviews of the author's work in major Indian papers of record satisfied the relevant notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 05:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Khan (author)[edit]

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

Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdullah_Khan_(author). The Non-notable author who terribly fails WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR. The entire article is on the back of a self-published book. Wholly promotional vanity article. RationalPuff (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be quite a few reviews of the subject's book in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:NAUTHOR, based on the reviews of his novel. My remaining concern is that I'm not sure how reliable some of the sources are. I would not oppose a userfy or draftify. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm definitely not an expert on the Indian press, but WP:RSNP lists The Hindu and The Indian Express as both generally reliable. The Hindustan Times and The Statesman appear to be major Indian newspapers of record. I would say that reviews in those outlets are probably sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR and/or the GNG. The article certainly does need to be excised of promotional content, but of course AfD isn't cleanup. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Abdullah Khan is a well-known author literary critic and screenwriter. His interview and reviews of Facebook ok have appeared in all all leading newspapers and magazines of India Pakistan and Bangladesh. Check the links. It has been reviewed by India's top newspaper like The Hindu , The Hindustan Times, The Indian express, The New Indian express, the Sunday guardian, the business standard, the business line and many more. In Pakistan it was reviewed by the Friday Times and in Bangladesh the number one newspaper of the country, the daily star, published a review.

this book. A detailed profile was published by Indian edition of Readers Digest. In addition to that a chapter from Patna Blues has been included in in BA/Bacon/BSc general English course of University of Kerala. University of Kerala is one of the the biggest Universities in southern part of India. Patna Blues is been translated into many languages. Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, Marathi, Bengali , and Hindi translations are already out. A simple Google research will reveal that the debut novel of this writer is getting a lot of media coverage. You can also check the webpage of of various Indian literature festivals where Abdullah Khan was a speaker.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannu80 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation Road[edit]

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

Does not have SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 17:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-10 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Davis[edit]

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

A person only notable as a university professor does not look notable to me. It also relies on mostly primary sources too. –Cupper52^Discuss! 16:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

–Cupper52^Discuss! 16:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 16:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: seems to me a clear keep as WP:prof notable and the material here http://www2.scc.rutgers.edu/ead/uarchives/davis2f.html , now in the article, useful for some additions (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Article needs more thorough sourcing but this looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C8 (founding editor of a journal which is arguable notable although we have no article on it), of #C5 ("New Jersey Professor of Mathematics Education at Rutgers University"), and plausibly also of #C1 (heavy citations for "Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics" and "The notion of limit: Some seemingly unavoidable misconception stages") and #C7 (through both the effects of the Madison project on elementary-level education can be documented and his work as mathematics advisor to Sesame Street). And the nominator's rationale seems to boil down to "people cannot be notable for being professors" which is just incorrect. The primary nature of the sources is irrelevant to academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I added 13 reviews of 3 books to the article, so he also passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the comments above and, I am tempted to say, per nom: "only notable as a university professor." We do have an entire notability guideline, WP:PROF, dealing specifically with notability of university professors. I have added a ref to the subject's bio in the 13th edition of the American Men and Women of Science (the source is mentioned in the Phil Church's bio of Davis and I looked it up using my university library online access, although the item is currently behind a paywall.) In addition to WP:PROF I believe the subject passes WP:BIO as well. Nsk92 (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, Davis' work on the Madison Project is discussed in detail on pp. 51-55 of this book[12], a ref to which I have added to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF, when even one would be sufficient. XOR'easter (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:PROF Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - based on what's in the article right now, he passes PROF and/or AUTHOR. Good work by David Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 1 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. Consensus that the topic is notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Rose (podcaster)[edit]

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

Not notable in a Wikipedia sense, but perhaps notorious? Coverage is not significant enough to meet notability requirements and looks coat racked to me. It's pretty negative and some users have been trying to white wash. Looks like a run of the mill disinformationist. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure There seems to be a fair bit of coverage of him and his views, all negative. But sadly if he is a notable idiot he is still notable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Vice article and the BBC would seem to be the only trusted sources, but they seem to be more about that Icke fellow than this guy. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph is not an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Vice article is explicitly about Rose, not Icke. One BBC piece is about Icke, the other is about Rose. As per Slatersteven, what's wrong with the other sources? Press Gazette, CNBC, News-24.fr etc. are all clearly reliable. OK, WP:RSP says there's no consensus on Salon. The only source that seems dodgy to me is Living Vegan. Bondegezou (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewing the citations in the article, we have one long, in depth piece about Rose [13]; a short puff piece about Rose [14], but is it RS?; and three short pieces about Rose [15] [16] [17] on his mayoral campaign. The Salon and Press Gazette pieces are not primarily about Rose, but do contain significant coverage of Rose. The Telegraph, CNBC and News-24.fr pieces contain significant coverage of his channel London Real and mention Rose. The ITV piece has significant coverage of London Real but does not mention Rose. Politifact, swlondoner, El Confidencial, Deadline and McGill all just mention Rose. The other BBC News piece mentions Rose's Icke interview, but does not mention Rose by name. Vice + Salon + Press Gazette + first BBC News piece + Indy100 seems plenty to satisfy WP:GNG. The mayoral candidacy on its own would fail WP:NPOL. Some of the coverage focuses more on London Real, so I did wonder if it was better to have an article on that than on Rose. But I think, combined, it makes sense to have a Rose article on his actions (Vice), London Real stuff (including the Icke interview - Press Gazette/Salon/Telegraph/CNBC/News-24.fr) and his candidacy (second BBC News piece/Indy100/City AM). Bondegezou (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is further coverage of Rose that doesn't add to the article and isn't cited, but demonstrates notability. Being arrested while campaigning was also covered by the Metro and EuroWeekly News, and mentioned by the Local Government Chronicle. Esquire has a piece inspired by Rose, although not really on him. GQ mentioned him. CoinGeek mentioned him. There's a bigger chunk on him in this piece from Fast Company. But beware there are a lot of other Brian Roses in the world, notably Brian Rose (boxer). Bondegezou (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brian Rose is a prospective candidate in the upcoming London Mayoral elections, so I am not surprised to see that an article has been whipped up ~~as potential publicity material~~. This is not mere cynicism on my part: a couple of determined and eager IP addresses have been editing the 2021 London Mayor election article to add/amend Brian Rose's details. We have to see this article for what it is, a rushed CV padded out with citations, and for me, it's certainly not passing GNG, it certainly borderline fails POLITICIAN and with the context of an upcoming election, there are questions about what this article is being used for - campaigning? If Rose does anything notable at the election, then we can revisit this question. But for now, it's a no. Delete. doktorb _words^deeds 23:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should withdraw the allegation of promotionalism, Doktorbuk. The article was created by an editor of good standing. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doktorbuk, it is certainly not promotional in its current form! You may feel it is accurate to describe it as having begun as a "rushed CV padded out with citations", but that seems an unfair description of what there is now. Bondegezou (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou Philafrenzy Point taken and accepted. I've scored out that term. doktorb _words^deeds 09:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just about enough to satisfy the GNG in the sources mentioned above. People don't have to be right to be notable. I think the public would reasonably expect us to have an article about him. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started the article, prompted by the discovery that Rose had the second shortest odds (after the strong favourite, Sadiq Khan), in the 2021 London mayoral election, with leading bookmakers including William Hill and Paddy Power. Living in London, and having never even heard of him, as a curious Wikipedian I had to find out more. There is plenty about him online, albeit much in sources of marginal or doubtful reliability. I was subsequently surprised by the level of editing activity, and as usual the article is better for it. I think there is enough in the article to meet WP:GNG. Also created London Real as a redirect to him, as it appears to be very much his personal vehicle. Incidentally, we have articles for several other fringe candidates with longer odds, (see 2021_London_mayoral_election#Other_candidates), such as Piers Corbyn and David Kurten, both also on the COVID/lockdown/vaccine sceptic/conspiracy theorist spectrum. Edwardx (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please delete anything about brian rose — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:B697:2D00:101B:3231:C43:F11 (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was this edit someone changing their !vote or was it vandalism? Bondegezou (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like vandalism. The first IP is registered to BT and geolocates to Lewisham, UK; the IP that changed the !vote is registered to AT&T and geolocates to Wisconsin, US. Both are static. I’m reverting it. SK2242 (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only reliable source providing significant coverage is BBC News. There should be at least 2, preferably 3. SK2242 (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with the sources indicated by Bondegezou. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst my politics don't line up completly with him, Brian Rose is a prospective candidate in the upcoming London Mayoral elections and a podcaster with a large following and good quality interviews that are good enough to be references for other articals in their own right.Back ache (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, as rightly or wrongly, he's the most talked about London mayoral candidate right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FFS if Binface has a Wikipedia page then this tool needs one too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.72.205 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you’re referring to Count Binface? Anyway, that’s not a good argument to make. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. SK2242 (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear relevance and WP:RS coverage. Alex (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG Rankersbo (talk) 12:38, 4 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) 17:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Gogov[edit]

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

Technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL due to coming on in the final minute of a 4-0 loss to Ludogorets. Probably played less than a minute of football and possibly didn't even touch the ball. A WP:BEFORE search in Bulgarian did not yield any coverage about this particular Ivan Gogov and there is absolutely nothing outside of football stats databases covering him. I can't find any evidence of anything other than that one minute cameo. Strong consensus now that failing WP:GNG is more important than NFOOTBALL in borderline cases. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has made only one appearance in career-fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite what @Cupper52: claims, he does past NFOOTBALL - but barely, and the fact he fails GNG comprehensively is far more important. Giant Snowman 08:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Case of WP:TOOSOON Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV which are far more important then 1 minute of WP:NFOOTY.Less Unless (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 3 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laxmi Kanto Babur Bari[edit]

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

Searches turned up zero. The current single source in the article is not about this building. Has been knocked around, sent back to draft, returned to mainspace, all without significant improvement. Without sourcing, does not meet any notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's worth having a look at the discussion at Talk:Laxmi Kanto Babur Bari. This could be notable but lacks the evidence for me to actually put in a keep vote, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Spiderone, good point. I read that before nominating, as there was very little improvement in the article, despite that conversation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It's a shame it didn't stay in draft, really. If this ends up being kept, I would strongly suggest deleting all of the OR, which is about 95% of the current article, unless someone manages to find sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, actually, since the current source doesn't refer to this particular building, the entire current article is unsourced. And I agree, it should have remained in draftspace to be worked on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:46, 22 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 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to issues with verifiability, I can't think of a good reason for keeping the article. If sources can be found, I'll happily vote keep Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi television drama[edit]

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

Much of the article appears to be OR essay. Subject of the article - Bangladeshi television drama - does not have SIGCOV addressing the topic directly and indepth. There are articles about individual programs, but nothing that addresses the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 14:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topchubashi[edit]

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

Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. There are no sources showing the topic - the family - is notable. Notability is not inherited. Nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject - the family - directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 14:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tagged for sources since 2008. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think when it comes to articles about families notability is indeed inherited. We have thousands of articles about families. The notability is related to their members, not to the family as such. Rathfelder (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I agree with Rathfelder that when it comes to nobility, notability and inheritance are inherently interlinked. The issue here is the continuing unsourced nature of the article. I think it should be draftified, and perhaps that will trigger an interested editor to provide sources. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:09, 2 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 Deleted by user:Justlettersandnumbers for G4, G5 (creation by banned user, recreation of previously deleted page)(non-admin closure)BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 19:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krodh (2019 film)[edit]

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

Contested PROD by article creator, no reason provided. If there were to be a WP:A7 applicable for films then this surely would have to apply to this article. Unfortunately, non-notable films are only eligible for PROD or AfD with the exception of obvious hoaxes. This appears to be an actual film as per this but I found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search that comes even remotely close to showing a passing of WP:GNG nor any criteria under WP:NFILM. Hindi Wikipedia has an article for this film currently here but it has no decent sources either and is currently up for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And don't forget the redirects. 2601:983:827F:6B20:E85B:348C:6C40:F6F2 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Naylor[edit]

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

Prolific referee at tiers 2 to 4 of the English league system but, in my WP:BEFORE search, I only found run-of-the-mill coverage like this or just name checks in match reports. Coverage across ProQuest also completely lacks depth. No evidence that Naylor comes close to passing WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable referee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 4 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. Hog Farm _Talk 03:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidot[edit]

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

Literally 99% of the information in this article comes from Wikidot itself (commercial pages, devblogs, internal documentation, Wikidot-hosted wikis) and/or rotten links, the only two exceptions being its Alexa ranking and a book from 2007. I'm surprised it's not been completely rewritten or straight deleted already. --Mafiew2 (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mafiew2 (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mafiew2 (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, if not speedy delete-promotional and has several page issues. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete few (if any) neutral sources used Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 90% of the references are to the company's blog, when we remove it there's not much left - just few mentions in passing. Fails WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Has already been deleted Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Avenue (disambiguation)[edit]

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

A pointless disambiguation page. The roads in Cavite doesn't have their own articles (yet) and aren't even avenues. A hatnote would be enough to distinguish them if these Cavite roads would ever have their own articles. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless. There's nothing to disambiguate. Station1 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entry 'Congressional Road in Dasmariñas, Cavite, sometimes referred as "Congressional Avenue"' is valid because there is a mention of "Congressional Avenue" in the article Dasmariñas, and that is how it is referred to in LRT Line 6 (Cavite) and National College of Science and Technology. However, there is no need for a disambiguation page: there should be a hatnote at Congressional Avenue such as {{for|another road|Dasmariñas}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji Murugadoss[edit]

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

Was previously AFDed and deleted as non notable actor. The subject has since worked in two Tamil films which have yet to be released, so it is pretty much WP:TOOSOON for an article. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom, WP:TOOSOON applies. Films have not yet been released, so there are no reliable sources. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to show that WP:NACTOR has been met. Ravensfire (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. This seems like a promotional biography by fans for participating in a recently aired reality TV show Bigg Boss Tamil 4. Sunlitsky (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandford Springs Golf Club[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:MILL golf club/course. Only routine coverage (directory listings, reviews, etc.) and passing mentions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacks SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Clearly promotional. Nigej (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and my own standards. In particular, there are "Signs this one is not notable: ... The only sources are specialty interest books/magazines... It had one or more notable golfers play there, but it was years ago and sourcing is sketchy... One or no major charitable events have been held there. ... The course or club is primarily an amenity to a ... hotel." The only source about a single alleged charitable effort (a local paper) is a dead link. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's acute shortage of sources that discuss the subject in good details. Luciapop (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable golf course.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Hill Golf Club[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:MILL golf club/course. Only routine coverage (directory listings, reviews, etc.) and passing mentions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacks SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Run-of-the-mill. Reads like a promotional brochure. Nigej (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per per all of the above, WP:SIGCOV, and my own standards. In particular, there are "Signs this one is not notable: ... One or no major charitable events have been held there... The course or club was founded after 1960... The course or club is primarily an amenity to a ... hotel." There is a single reliable source, a Times article, but that is not enough. As noted, "a redirect might be acceptable." Bearian (talk) 21:25, 1 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Rezaei[edit]

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

Fails Notability standards for Actors Jenyire2 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:MILL run of the mill Iranian actor with no significant notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Wildt[edit]

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

Lacks WP:GNG. Not yet ready for Mainspace Jenyire2 (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, does not meet GNG. Zero references for the extreme claims made in the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems clearly notable to me.... added a couple of basic refs and brief cats. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - citation count alone makes him pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion isn't cleanup. He is notable, although I agree this is a very bare bones article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify -- an interesting subject with potential, who fits notability standards as discussed above, but not ready for prime time. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has 14,603 citations across 7,180 documents and an h-index of 66. Literally in the first page of Google hits there are these obituaries for him published by a couple international organizations, in a major journal, and in a newspaper that could easily fill out this page. Even before his death, an "encyclopedia" maintained by ASU offered a very large profile on him. JoelleJay (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:NPROF, and plausible GNG per obits in independent reliable sources. The article is a short stub, but otherwise appears to be in reasonable shape. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes both WP:PROF#C1 (heavily cited publications on Google Scholar) and WP:GNG (multiple independent in-depth sources about him, already in the article). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5 as creator was a blocked sock of ArmanAfifeh. There seems to be also some consensus for delete, but closing early as speedy delete as page was speedily deleted. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Nikfar[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:BASIC from what I can find. Sources in the article are invariably self-published or just a name check in a reliable source; nothing that establishes biographical notability. I don't believe that any of his accolades place him in a position that would yet make him notable by default, either. The best sources I could find in a WP:BEFORE search were this, this and this, all of which are passing mentions. He does not yet appear to be a notable YouTuber or producer of short films. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:, as per nom, all references are mentions, and not much more. Spend time translating Arabic. Does not meet any of the Principles given here for Youtubers. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable media figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to being a notable YouTuber or actor. All of the references are far from acceptable and it fails WP:NACTOR, WP:CREATIVE and obviously WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreykai (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. A triple non-threat. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - He has received an award from a festival FotoFilm Tijuana.--Artin M123 ^{(Συζητώ)} 20:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC) struck sock vote Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That alone is not sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:CREATIVE. Additionally, you would need to show that he has a large fan base or cult following or that he is known for producing multiple notable films. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He easily performs creative wp:Creative professionals He has received an award from a prestigious festival, her fame can be easily proved with wp:Creative professionals.--Ərtin M123 ^{(Συζητώ)} 02:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC) struck sock comment Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the third paragraph, WP:Creative has written this (3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.) It is clearly written if a person has a role in the fame of a work.In my opinion, when he receives an award from a festival that is famous, then he has enough fame.--Ərtin M123 ^{(Συζητώ)} 02:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC) struck sock comment Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that FotoFilm Tijuana is an award that grants that level of presumed notability, especially in the case where Nikfar badly fails all other criteria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~ Like Yes, I agree with you.--Ərtin M123 ^{(Συζητώ)} 12:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)~~ struck sock comment Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. A single award from a festival doesn't make him notable. There are hundreds of people who receive awards from different festivals, yet only those that get significant coverage have articles on WP. Keivan.f^Talk 21:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Carli[edit]

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

Football-related person who fails GNG and NFOOTY. External sources is mostly local. Article is in unencyclopedic tone and written primarily by single-purpose account which raises big concerns about WP:PROMO and WP:COI BlameRuiner (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: games played do not meet requirements of NFOOTY. Article is prepped by an SPA, so close connection is clear. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is full of fluff! Feels very WP:PROMOTIONAL. I find it very odd the way the sources have been added with 404's and the fact no one else can verify say 90% of them makes this highly suspect. And I will go as far to say this is a clear WP:G11 candidate. Govvy (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Feldman[edit]

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

~~Subject of this BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- notability relies heavily on Mark Wahlberg connections. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, due to additional sources unearthed. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:, agree with nom, article and references reliant on Mark Wahlberg connection. Article goes off the rails talking about Wahlberg. Does not meet WP:NBIO --Whiteguru (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zero evidence of notability. There are some dubious, PR-like sources used in the article. M4DU7 (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED or redirect. From what I can see, all of the sources are either about Wahlberg or his auto dealership, including charitable donations. Please ping me if you fix the issues. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is now updated and improved with many sources about Feldman too. Some of the sources are mentioned below.

https://www.northwood.edu/outstanding-alumni

https://www.autoremarketing.com/retail/acquisition-al-deeby-dealership-continues-feldmans-growth

https://eu.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2015/07/27/bud-kouts-chevrolet-redevelop-site-michigan-avenue/30746751/

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2122493999843/feldman-automotive-group-acquires-clarkston-fca-dealership

https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/news/local_news/michigan-s-feldman-brings-wahlberg-chevy-to-columbus/article_81d8e839-4108-55c5-93f8-c2fa1072cc22.html

https://www.automotivebuysellreport.com/feldman-automotive-and-mark-wahlberg-partner-to-acquire-chevrolet-dealership-in-ohio/

https://www.dbusiness.com/daily-news/feldman-automotive-group-acquires-clarkston-fca-dealership/

~~https://www.autonews.com/article/20180917/RETAIL/180919826/one-retailer-s-road-to-success Otisoagt (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Blocked sock. MER-C 17:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As article is improvised, current sources seems to fullfill WP:BASIC. He has received Alumni Awards from Northwood University which gives him additional recognization for qualifying WP:GNG. Setreis (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Akronowner (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 17:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Has massive amount of coverage. Most info is due to partnership with Wahlberg but there is enough here to justify a keep, including in depth article here. Peter303x (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a site where anyone can submit their own news article or promote their brand. M4DU7 (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article hasn't been improved, it has merely been WP:REFBOMBed. Passing mentions, interviews, corporate announcements, self-published articles, etc do not count towards notability. The sources listed above are just that. Someone needs to present WP:THREE sources that provide in-depth, non-trivial coverage of this person to demonstrate notability. I don't want to cast aspersions, but this influx of keep votes is strange to say the least. M4DU7 (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Hi, M4DU7! I only added few sources before because there are too many to add here. As you requested I am adding more sources here, these should be more than enough.~~

~~https://www.autoremarketing.com/retail/acquisition-al-deeby-dealership-continues-feldmans-growth This talks about how acquisition of Al Deeby dealership continues Feldman's growth.~~

https://www.autonews.com/article/20180917/RETAIL/180919826/one-retailer-s-road-to-success This talks about Feldman's career, how he started auto business, meeting Wahlberg and then growing business together.

https://eu.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2015/07/27/bud-kouts-chevrolet-redevelop-site-michigan-avenue/30746751/ This talks about Feldman’s business strategy to redevelop its dealership on East Michigan Avenue.

https://www.northwood.edu/outstanding-alumni This shows Feldman receiving Outstanding Alumni Award. An award which is given with emphasis on those who have shown dedication and achievement in their professions.

https://www.dbusiness.com/daily-news/feldman-automotive-group-acquires-clarkston-fca-dealership/ This talks about Feldman and his Automotive Group Acquiring Clarkston FCA Dealership.

https://www.autobodynews.com/index.php/midwestern/item/21874-longtime-livonia-mi-chevy-dealership-was-supposed-to-close-now-it-s-a-top-seller.html This article shows that Longtime Livonia, MI, Chevy Dealership Was Supposed to Close but how Feldman made it a Top Seller.

Additional sources
Here is an additional list of sources. Many of the sources in this section shows how he met and established partnership with Mark Wahlberg:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/20/mark-wahlberg-is-buying-bobby-layman-chevrolet.html

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2020/05/28/bobby-layman-dealership-gets-a-new-owner.html

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mark-wahlberg-buying-chevrolet-car-dealership-ohio-1128710

https://www.crainsdetroit.com/automotive/feldman-automotive-group-acquires-al-deeby-chrysler-dodge-jeep-ram-clarkston

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/feldman-automotive-acquires-al-deeby-chrysler-dodge-jeep-ram-1029878306

https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/news/local_news/michigan-s-feldman-brings-wahlberg-chevy-to-columbus/article_81d8e839-4108-55c5-93f8-c2fa1072cc22.html

https://www.digitaldealer.com/latest-news/interview-with-jay-s-feldman-of-feldman-automotive-inc/

https://www.whio.com/news/trending/coronavirus-mark-wahlberg-helps-donate-1100-tablets-detroit-area-hospitals/GSKH5QP5YBFJLH6KIKH2K7KWWE/

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2122493999843/feldman-automotive-group-acquires-clarkston-fca-dealership

https://www.aiada.org/news/first-up/hyundai-sales-fall-22

https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2020/04/18/wahlberg-feldman-donate-1-100-computers-beaumont-workers/5158845002/

https://eu.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2020/09/02/mark-wahlberg-jay-feldman-dealerships/3362594001/

https://www.xing.com/profile/Jay_Feldman

https://eu.thisweeknews.com/story/news/2020/08/08/mark-wahlberg-buys-worthingtons-jack-maxton-chevrolet-his-fourth-dealership-in-central-ohio/42193363/

https://www.pehalnews.in/how-mark-wahlberg-car-dealer-became-friends-business-partners/98715/

https://www.feldmanchevyofnewhudson.com/

https://www.autobodynews.com/index.php/midwestern/item/21874-longtime-livonia-mi-chevy-dealership-was-supposed-to-close-now-it-s-a-top-seller.html

https://www.automotivebuysellreport.com/feldman-automotive-and-mark-wahlberg-partner-to-acquire-chevrolet-dealership-in-ohio/

https://www.cars.com/dealers/156558/feldman-chevrolet-of-highland/

https://www.acg.org/detroit/events/not-your-fathers-auto-dealership-get-big-or-get-out

https://www.fox47news.com/yes/feldman-automotive-helps-raise-awareness-on-distracted-driving

~~There is sufficient coverage in many sources to allow Jay Feldman to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Otisoagt (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

I reopened this debate - the article creator has been blocked for UPE and sockpuppetry and at least one of the keep voters is their sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akronowner. MER-C 17:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam written by an abusive sockpuppeteer. MER-C 17:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Feldman fails in notability guidelines as per WP:A1. Expertediting (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable here, we should delete the article as the criteria. Wikieditor00011 (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails in passing Wikipedia guidelines. The nominator MrsSnoozyturtle is a paid editor. He withdrew his nomination wrongly. Please put back the nomination and proceed to delete. Enteringediting (talk) 19:46, 8 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ukur[edit]

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

Literally gets a sentence fragment in the cited source ([18]), which does not itself cite any sources. Boy, that's helpful, isn't it? I wasn't able to find any other reliable sources on a search, including of JSTOR. Happy to withdraw if there are sources that I didn't find, but I'm dubious here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not in my dictionary of mythology. However, This search (Ukur + mythology) returns results. Nonetheless, this is lazy work, absolutely no redeeming features here, no go. No reliable sources, and its not our job to do the work. Delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've just had a quick peek at those, but none of them seem (at a skim!) to be referring to a god of the underworld. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whiteguru most of your list reasons for delete "this is lazy work, absolutely no redeeming features here, no go. No reliable sources, and its not our job to do the work." are not reasons to delete per WP:BEFORE C.1. "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." You are correct that we are not obligated to correct the article, but if it is fixable, we should not be deleting it. Jeepday (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything to meet WP:GNG for this topic. As Premeditated Chaos says the alternate search does not show anything to support the article. Jeepday (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Assassins[edit]

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

BEFORE searches turn up no evidence of significant coverage of this 2011 Facebook application. The only references in the article are copies of the game's webpage and the developer's webpage, both of which are insufficient. So, this article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted IMHO. DocFreeman24 (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search brings absolutely no results. References given do not meet WP:NVIDEOGAMES --Whiteguru (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable video game and fails WP:SIGCOV. Wario-Man ^talk 13:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. IceWelder [✉] 20:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:47, 1 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semitropic, California[edit]

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

The company mentioned in the article was, from everything I can see, located in Orange County, not here: the one source I could get enough access to said it was established in Placentia. At the Kern County location all I can find record of is a school, which is still there, though obviously in rather different facilities. I can't imagine establishing a post office at a school building, but then there's a lot I cannot imagine; at any rate I find nothing indicating anything else here. What is clear is that there is a Semitropic Water District, and there are a lot of hits for that. But I cannot find anything that says this was a town, and I don't think any of the various other "semitropic" things is notable either. Mangoe (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search brings references to Semitropic Water Storage District. Ditto, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Buena Vista Lake Shrew, Unit 6: Semitropic, Kern County, California. The Oil Field is in a 1937 map which requires special access. Agreed, there is no reference to a town. So, as per nom, Delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mushtaque Ahmad[edit]

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

The article does not pass GNG and there is no claim to notability. None of his positions show that he has meet notability guidelines. It its current state the sources it uses are not enough to pass WP:GNG The most used source seems to be a fringe Wiki like website, QOWMIPEDIA. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Translating Bangladesi. The main reference is the basis of this article. Bangladeshi Deobandi Islamic scholar. References don't really meet Reliable Sources:Religious Sources. Has no notability as an Islamic Scholar outside of Bangladesh. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Islamic Foundation Bangladesh is the only and highest government Islamic authority in Bangladesh. Only the best scholars of the country get the responsibility here, where he is the Deputy Director! - Owais ^Talk 03:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy directorship of a minor government organization does not confer notability. Mosesheron (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local madrasah teacher. His major claim to fame seems to be his attainment of a PhD as the "first scholar to study at Qawmi Madrasa" which I honestly regard as a great achievement on the part of Bangladesh's Qawmi Madrasas. Sadly, however, subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOLAR. Sorry. Mosesheron (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 4 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 Katy Perry. Consensus that these topics are not notable, however they are mentioned at Perry's article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purr by Katy Perry[edit]

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

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

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

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

Not notable (WP:PROMO). Straight-up advertisement, fancruft and puffery, which is what Wikipedia is not. Being endorsed by Katy Perry, a notable singer, does not make this notable. HĐ (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Could be a subsection in the singer's article, nothing notable about the scent alone. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Katy Perry these are all mentioned on her main page, and are viable search terms, so I feel this is the best compromise without going against WP:PROMO or adding any details there that might border on advertising. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Katy Perry per SNUGGUMS. Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Katy Perry, the articles are messes that serve only to promote a product. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, being a good article, thought ARSeditors may be interested....... Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first one. As Coolabahapple pointed out it is listed as "Social sciences and society good articles" and also was a Did You Know. It has multiple reliable sources giving it significant coverage. I just clicked the Wikipedia reliable sources search at the top of the INH and found another https://people.com/style/exclusive-katy-perry-goes-wild-behind-the-scenes-at-her-purr-fragrance-shoot/ Not sure why it was nominated with the rest of these. Dream Focus 02:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mad Potion also. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/katy-perry-launches-mad-potion-810816 https://www.latimes.com/fashion/la-ig-katy-perry-20150816-story.html Dream Focus 02:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the two sources (People is not very reliable...) I don't see anything that could add substance to these articles. The Hollywood Reporter piece is news report which Wikipedia is not. Also I am not seeing how it could significantly expand these articles. I don't think you can keep the first one just because it is a GA and was nominated for DYK. It can be delisted. HĐ (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with a perfume's creator don't count towards notability regardless of how much depth the pieces give because those are just self-promotion, so those links from The Hollywood Reporter and Los Angeles Times aren't enough to maintain an article. Not sure what to say about the People link when it partially rehashes a press release from her. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just writing about something, they took the time to interview the person, and gave them coverage for what they considered notable. That's how notability is determined on Wikipedia, what the media decides is noteworthy, we then allow articles for. Dream Focus 20:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles just focusing on the perfumes themselves are actually more likely to be counted towards notability. Instead of primary sources (what THR and LA Times are in this case), WP:GNG says we should strive for coverage from secondary sources that are independent of the subject. That also excludes "advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every article ever written about any media or item is advertising. Movies, books, television shows, music, toys, games, fashion, anything being reviewed, or those creating them interviewed about them, its all the same. If she was talking about a song of hers instead of a perfume, would it make any difference to you? Reliable sources that cover fashion, makeup, perfume, and other girl things, do count towards notability. These things are commonly reviewed by them, just as a video game website would review notable games. Whichever they choose to give coverage to, passed the general notability guidelines. When they review a movie they also review the people who created it, and interview them as well. Same thing. Also "independent of the subject" means not owned by them or otherwise connected, it has nothing to do with interviews. Dream Focus 20:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing my point. Critics reviewing someone's work/product isn't the same thing as a creator discussing it. Pieces where she discusses her own music wouldn't count towards notability either because that's not a third-party making any comments/analysis on the matter. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its about getting coverage, nothing else. They think she's notable enough to give her that much print in their publication, and aren't being paid to do so, then it counts towards the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 20:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's an oversimplification. In order to warrant articles, said coverage must come from third parties, and credible ones at that. It also cannot just be a brief passing mention (e.g. a cumulative paragraph or less wouldn't be enough). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Snuggums that the other editor is downplaying the importance of "independent of the subject" criterion as listed at WP:GNG (coverage should exclude works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. The Hollywood Reporter interview is a type of pressing advertisement, thus it is nowhere near "independent of the subject". That is a completely different case from a critical review. HĐ (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Ingemi[edit]

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

Alright, here it goes. So, I stumbled upon this article after I began thinking about creating an article on her as well. However, it can quickly be ascertained that she does not qualify for an article per WP:GNG. Most of these articles are press releases with a passing mention of her (except for ref #10 which is a press release focused on her) or blogs (like Awful Announcing). I waited to see if anything would come out of this Barstool controversy (ie. articles focusing on her) but nothing has happened. She may be notable on Hockey Twitter(TM) but not for Wikipedia HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I found the article as it was being mass-attacked, presumably by Barstool fans. But aside from a current controversy, I'm not finding extensive coverage about her, nor reason to believe she's yet notable. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure she created this page for herself and self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.173.80 (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was not self-created, the user that is credited as creator is very likely from Europe based on my experience with them. Yosemiter (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see much showing she's risen above other journalists in her field. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom sums it up. I can't see much about her in sources other than passing mentions. -DJSasso (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:JOURNALIST, nothing found that ticks wikinotability boxes ps. see my (rambling) "comment" @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Bork. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to her role as a sports journalist, I concede to the previously stated assessments. Would placing primacy on her role as the play-by-play announcer for the Pride impact any notability assessments, as many play-by-play commentators who are known for their work with a specific team have Wikipedia pages? Given the relatively small number of bios for women who are not players/coaches working in ice hockey, I would be very willing to rework the page if the modifications might result in "Keep." This is a question asked in good faith and I would really appreciate it if a minimum level of respect could be maintained in any responses. Cheers. – Spitzmauskc (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Spitzmauskc, that is a good question. I did check out other articles on female sports announcers recently but all the hockey-related ones had at least one independent news coverage of them (usually about them being the "first). She just doesn't pass GNG yet. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Like anything that people want to write an article about on Wikipedia she would have to have multiple independent sources about her. So what her role happens to be is somewhat moot if there are no sources about her because even play by play people would need independent sources. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Wave[edit]

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

I don't see how this musician is notable. There is a trivial mention at "Billboard" magazine, but it doesn't support notability. Current references also don't support notability. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seagull123: I saw that you proposed this page for the deletion earlier in May 2020. Do you want to comment here? --Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbarmadillo: thanks for pinging me. I nominated it for deletion in May for WP:BLPPROD, as there weren't any references at all at that time. Looking at it now, I'm leaning towards delete, as most of the sources in the article (and the ones I can find on Google) appear to either be passing mentions, or just webpages listing information about the person, neither of which convince me of this person's notability. Seagull123 Φ 12:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep found a source. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cupper52: can I ask if you mean this source? Seagull123 Φ 12:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:05, 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) 03:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Protests against Donald Trump#Rogue Twitter accounts. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt National Park Service[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation. This group is simply not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was one of a series of alt [insert US federal government agency here] accounts that sprung up around this time four years ago as part of the hashtag Resistance. I'm surprised we don't have an article about that phenomenon. If we did, a merge or redirect there would seem appropriate. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:07, 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) 03:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into National Park Service. There are definitely sources, a couple already in the article as well as from a simple Google News search for "Alt National Park Service" (in quotes); but that said, it's more of a footnote of the National Park Service based on a single moment of the Trump presidency. ~EdGl talk 03:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...Protests_against_Donald_Trump#Rogue_Twitter_accounts per Reywas92 below. ~EdGl talk 03:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Either to the Park Service article or a Trump controversy article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Protests_against_Donald_Trump#Rogue_Twitter_accounts, where many of these are listed. This section could be expanded with the prose from this perhaps. This should absolutely not be merged to the main NPS article: this would be a footnote in the History of the National Park Service, not being much more than a Twitter account. Reywas92^Talk 02:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There are four sources for this article, about a Twitter account notable entirely for being run by rogue federal employees: one of them is the Twitter account's Facebook page, one is the Twitter account itself, and one is an article titled Rogue National Park Service Twitter account says it’s no longer run by government employees…but maybe it never was. jp×g 16:35, 2 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Shadows (film)[edit]

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

Notability. Stub. Promotional. Acousmana (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional of what, exactly? WenaRamiro (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Promotional of what" - SEO effort to promote non-notable documentary using Wikipedia. Prior to this edit, it had a direct quote from the film's website in the first line of the lead. Editorial tone was also problematic . Acousmana (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how redacting an article of a news-worthy topic in a "problematic" sense makes the article non-notable. WenaRamiro (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in an agreement with WenaRamiro. Acousmana, please analyze it in regards of how it fails WP:GNG or WP:NFO. As I see it the subject of this article might be able to pass WP:GNG... Kolma8 (talk)

per WP:GNG, re:"significant coverage", OK best reference used is NY Times and that's only a passing mention, after that Salon and Daily Beast as about equal in terms of WP:RS, the rest, especially 'Small Screen', are low quality and should be dumped. Trivial mentions in weak sources like Daily Kos and Pique do nothing for notability. If the subject is as notable as claimed, there should be more high quality sources provided.Acousmana (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found those four that are worth mentioning: [[19]], [[20]], [[21]], [[22]]. All of them might be "significant", but none are "reliable" IMO. Kolma8 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per above. Kolma8 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, routine GNG failure. SK2242 (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM and per all of the above Donaldd23 (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitute Disfigurement[edit]

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

Prostitute Disfigurement is a real Dutch band that has performed just is not particularly notable. I have conducted a comprehensive though not all-encompassing WP:BEFORE. I have found passing mentions in the general press (concert lineups) and a few general listings and articles on extremely specific websites. By my analysis fails WP:BAND and even the WP:GNG. This AfD is in continuation to two of the band's albums that were nominated by other editors. gidonb (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They got some gig announcements in various local publications [23], some uninformative introductions in magazines like Blabbermouth [24] and Decibel [25], and an occasional specialist album review [26]. Those are all minor tidbits showing that the band got a little notice, but not enough to reach the significant and reliable coverage requirements for notability in Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of their albums has been reviewed by Metal.de, which is a reliable source (it is not listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID, but other editors also said it's reliable). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:17, 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) 01:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, total output on reasonably big enough labels seems to indicate a weak meeting of WP:NBAND. Although the band's lyrics/themes seem atrocious. Geschichte (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don’t think it’s possible to improve this article to a reasonable state as there just isn’t the source material. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Tory Party[edit]

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

Short-lived political party that didn't make any waves or receive lasting attention. Neither "New Tory Party" nor "Karol Siroky" turn up anything relevant on Google. The single reference in the article only confirms Siroky's date and place of death, and contains nothing about his foray into politics— the article is effectively unsourced, and moreover, was seemingly written by the subject himself. The only thing that might be noteworthy here (and I don't think it is) is Siroky's attempt to invalidate the 1985 Ontario general election— but that seems like it could be covered on that page, if deemed relevant. — Kawnhr (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:23, 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) 01:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not find any support to meet WP:GNG for a "New Tory Party" in Canada in the 1980's, but I did find some that suggest the one from the 1700's in England might meet it. No Objections to recreation for the subject of the 1700"s if valid references are supplied. Jeepday (talk) 19:03, 4 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pre Metro Operations[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Buttons0603:, do not "snowball close" an AfD on an article you created. If you believe the AfD has been opened in bad faith you need to open a thread at WP:ANI asking for administrative help on the issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not seeing how this is passing WP:NORG/WP:GNG. If better sources are found, please ping me so I can review them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Article certainly does require a major rewrite with a fair bit of pruning of uncited text, but not a reason to delete. Have read about often enough in secondary cites over the years to be reasonably confident enough exist to meet WP:GNG. Will put it on the to do list. Metro140 (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a number of reliable sources are available, but they don't offer much more than is already contained in the British Rail Class 139 or Parry People Movers article. Maybe a merge to the former, but leaning to a delete. Metro140 (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable related content with West Midlands Trains then delete. Nightfury 08:51, 1 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 18:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ulteo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Ulteo is a defunct company without even a website. It may be worthy of a footnote in a history of software companies, but is not worth having an un-maintained article, which has been basically an advertisement for a product. Sorry in advance for any procedure or format errors. Category should be Organization. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2008-06 ✗ delete, 2008-04 ✗ delete

Related discussions: 2020-02 Gaël Duval ✗ no consensus to delete

Logs: 2013-08 move to → Ulteo Open Virtual Desktop, 2008-09 ✗ G4, 2008-07 ✗ CSD R2, 2008-07 move to → User:Gigglesworth/Ulteo, 2008-07 ↻ restored, 2008-07 ✗ G4, 2008-06 ✗ deleted, 2008-06 ↻ restored, 2008-06 ✗ deleted, 2008-06 ✗ deleted, 2008-04 ✗ CSD R2, 2008-04 move to → User:Avant Destiny/Ulteo, 2008-04 ↻ restored, 2008-04 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reasons as last time. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neda Kozić[edit]

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

Non-notable former tennis player who fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. The closest this former player comes to passing WP:NTENNIS is winning a $25K doubles title, however this came in 2008, after the cutoff for ITF titles was increased to $50k. My WP:BEFORE search only found [27] which is a passing mention at best. Iffy★Chat -- 21:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I believe there is enough to satisfy GNG. [This], It is a sufficiently detailed report that he coached a tennis club in the USA. Also detailing information about his coaching career [another] but from what I remember these sorts of references were usually enough, despite her career not yet reaching the level required to satisfy the specific tennis player criteria. User:Vecihi91 (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have started expanding the article. I do not have any more time to work on it now, but I hope I have shown that there is enough there. User:Vecihi91 (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the tennis club sources linked above for GNG purposes is that they are not independent of the subject, as the subject works for these tennis clubs. Upon further inspection, I completely missed [28] which admitedly is significant coverage in a reliable source, but if this is the only one that exists, there isn't enough to meet GNG here. Iffy★Chat -- 13:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough to satisfy GNG. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - because of NW and Abendblatt Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 2 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 18:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAROO[edit]

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

No indication this company/product meets WP:NCORP. The sources in the article are all either first-party or a rehashed press release (hint: they're all the same date). My own searching finds nothing recent, other than a mention on facebook that faroo has recently morphed into something called seekstorm. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Cannot soft-delete due to comment on the talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The webiste goes to something called Seekstorm now. Eitehr way, I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Former Presidents Act#Staff and office. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Office of the Former President[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Not every WP:FART from Donald Trump is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Former Presidents Act#Staff and office. Note that Post-presidency of Donald Trump (currently a redirect to the biography) will probably end up needing to be a separate article. We have a number of such articles all following that naming convention. Neutrality^talk 01:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The post-transition designation "Office of the Former President" predates (and is obviously therefore not unique to) Trump. In the original incarnation of this article, this was cited to a GSA issue paper describing the process.

Trump's declaration of there now being such an office for him does not seem like a topic for an entire article. The article should be revised/reverted to reflect that this is not a Trump-specific component of a presidential transition, or redirected, as it once was, to the Former Presidents Act article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Former Presidents Act#Staff and office as previously done; all presidents have offices after they finish in office (see Bill Clinton and the various issues with him finding an office in the New York area), and this is hardly a new concept. The current article as-is pretty much has one reference duplicated seven times but re-written for certain audiences, which isn't acceptable. Nate • (chatter) 04:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Former Presidents Act#Staff and office. There is no such office as "the former president". There are a number of former presidents, who as private citizens after they have left the actual office (in the sense of political office) of president may establish a private/personal office (in the sense of a room with a handful of office workers) to help them with their correspondence etc. As noted, all former presidents have some office help of this nature, it's nothing special, and doesn't merit its own article. --Tataral (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Former Presidents Act#Staff and office. I had previously redirected the article to both of the proposed targets (Former Presidents Act and Post-presidency of Donald Trump), but after giving it more thought, even if Trump chose to make "The Office Of The Former President" the name of his office, that office isn't actually notable for the reasons Tataral described. Redirects are cheap, but I'd also be fine with deleting the redirect entirely if there's a consensus that the name "office of the former president" gives the misimpression that it's a real public office or position, or that it's even an office (singular) at all. In my opinion, the only reason why this Trump story got as much (short-term) attention as it did is because of the name. Either outcome is fine by me, just not keeping it in mainspace as a standalone article. Vanilla Wizard 💙 10:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS The article's sources do not meet the criteria to justify its existence, and there is no reason to believe that will change. --DawnDusk (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So pleased that Wikipedia has kept this article. Big brother would like to remove it but the existence of this factually correct article proves that America is still a free country, no matter what your political beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.228.118 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Delete or Redirect, per above. Mgasparin (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS Not an official office. Equine-man (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not an elected or appointed position, but the "Office of the President" is an officially recognized component of the presidential transition, just as the "Office of the President-Elect" is. See here where the GSA discusses Clinton's Office of the Former President reimbursing the government, here where they "support the Office of the Former President" for G W Bush, and here where they discuss the presidential transition in general in the context of the then-upcoming 2016 election, and describe their role in establishing and funding the Office of the Former President.

- Comment By official I meant a recognised elected/appointed position. I would support the redirect back to where it was originally. Equine-man (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to justify a redirect to the FPA article rather than a deletion.--NapoliRoma (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, unless this actually becomes a big deal later on. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not censorship DONALD TRUMP WE see what you are doing and we DONT LIKE IT. We OWN YOU. You don’t OWN US — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CE01:C550:9C33:4EDA:BFA1:1F9D (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect to Former Presidents Act#Staff and office. "Office of the Former President" refers to the respective office of every former president set up under the Former Presidents Acts, e.g., The Office of Barack and Michelle Obama, Office of George W. Bush. The name of Trump's office—per the letterhead—seems to be "The Office of Donald J. Trump." Adding source for "Office of Donald J. Trump": https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-25/trump-opens-office-to-carry-on-agenda-of-his-administration. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that someone thought this might be Trump specific shows that it is a not widely used term and not worth having an article on. Also, this is meant to be a global encyclopedia, there are more people with president as a title than the president of the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 2 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 deleted by Ponyo as an article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSD A7). (non-admin closure) SK2242 (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pranav Giridhar[edit]

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

A probable vanity article on a subject that does not have evidence of being able to meet WP:BIO; no coverage found in a WP:BEFORE search. Lots of claims to notability present in the article but could not verify any of them. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Not even worth an Afd. Should be A7'd or just draftified. Loksmythe (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I tagged it for A7 deletion. He's a 13-year-old, he probably isn't running an organization of any size. A propos of that, I recently read an article about how it's become commonplace for kids dealing with COVID to set up philanthropic operations (instead of just signing onto existing community organizations). No shade to them, but few of them are likely to achieve significant note. Largoplazo (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's gone. Largoplazo (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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