Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 29 July 31 >

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) 06:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC notability criteria. More than 50% of the references are the person's own work and the rest seem to be typical biography pages on different research institutes' websites describing the person very briefly. In secondary sources, apparently only two trivial mentions (KazInform International News Agency & ABC Nyheter). Article was declined twice for notability issues in 2014. 212.239.136.225 (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC) 23:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The New York Times gave significant coverage to her research on poverty in Afghanistan in this 2005 article. According to Google Scholar, her 2007 book Human Security Concepts and Implications has been cited 841 times. Here is a review of this book, which describes it as a "pioneering work" that portrays poverty as a human security threat. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
    • Cullen has kindly provided argument to keep, which I agree – and I will now be sure that Cullen's examples appear in entry.
    • Nay-sayers, save your breath and Wikipedia text space; prove your point first (e.g., in this case, by demonstrating via search your advocacy for deletion). Please, please learn to take more constructive approaches, not destructive, which suck up other people's time in negative fashion. - Aboudaqn (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I agree with Cullen and Aboudaqn (thanks for changes, Aboudaqn) - Raffmeiste (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I agree with Cullen, Aboudaqn and Raffmeiste. There is strong evidente of the academic notability (semantic scholar: 450 citations, here - Vidamag (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 12:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Tux[edit]

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

not a Wikipedia notable company, just one of millions of companies. Also somebody else put a tag at the beginning of the article possibly suggesting that the owner of the company may have created the article. Charliestalnaker (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The topic more than meets WP:GNG with multiple in-depth articles in highly respected, independent publications. This article is not great, has some COI and link spam issues, but that means it might be a candidate for semi-protection, not deletion. Niftysquirrel (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a Google News search, there are many, many current news stories about Chevron and Costco. None on Generation Tux. Charliestalnaker (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It had GNG for Zimmer's founding but not the company. Most of the news articles are about Zimmer starting a new venture, not about the company. Since the founding, very little coverage. If it is deemed that this company is Wikipedia notable, then Wikipedia should become a business directory as tens of thousands of companies also have brief intro coverage. Charliestalnaker (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG - looking over articles, there was some coverage when the company first started, probably because George Zimmer was a TV ad star for many years. The article may have been largely written by Generation Tux judging from the warnings slapped on the article. (Wikipedia should not be a corporate stooge). Since then, almost nothing has been written in the press. Sorry, Mr. "I guarantee it" certainly deserves an article but not the barely notable or non-notable Generation Tux. Charliestalnaker (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with specific actions a) not to allow draftifying and b) to salt. Daniel (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shneor Orel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, autobiography moved b creating editor(s) to mainspace after being draftified at some point. Moving it back to Draft would be edit warring, so here it is at AfD FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - uses at least one black hat SEO source, which is enough to cast doubt on the notability of the subject. MER-C 11:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator Comment The creating editor has expressed a desire on my talk page for this to be returned to draft in order that they may seek to make improvements. MER-C, you are the only person offering a deletion opinion thus far. Would you be willing, instead, to alter that opinion to draftification. If you are I will not stand in the way of that outcome. I have advised them in the last few moments to present their case here. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It's better for the author to realise that Wikipedia does not host autobiographies now rather than it getting deleted via G13 in six months time. MER-C 16:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. i didn't make it on purpose (moving from draft etc...) i am new in wikipedia. Is it possible to remove the deletion like this we can move it to draft and leave it there until i do the things right and make this article perfect? thanks in advance

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aishe Ghosh[edit]

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

Non notable politician who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NPOL, being a candidate does not confer notability. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The subject always comes to news headlines in India. By comparing the sources this article can be kept. But unsure about its Notability criteria. - Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero evidence of any notability; doesn't meet our criteria for politicians.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'd perhaps argue for keep. This, this, this, this and many other sources should be enough to help her pass notability. The Economic Times in the long articles does mention, "The 25-year-old Ghosh, president of the JNU Students' Union (JNUSU), is arguably the most recognised student leader in the country at present." ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Prior to looking at subjective guidelines like WP:NPOL, we've the GNG and imo, Ghosh meets GNG, as a student activist. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just tried Google and got these few (which I think are helpful), I'd surely try to find more once I get some more time. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being the president of the students union of a university is not an automatic pass of WP:POL. The coverage shows that the notability of the subject is related to the WP:SINGLEEVENT of the 2020 Jawaharlal Nehru University attack. Besides that, I also see COI issues to this page as the article was created by an editor who claimed this image as their work on the commons, and I can not find the image online (which would imply copyright infringement). This implies a close connection between the uploader and the subject.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There might be COI issues but that doesn't deny the fact that the subject passes GNG. Beccaynr has presented a number of sources below. "When GNG passes, we don't need to look at any other subjective guideline." ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator also appears to be a new editor, but per the sources identified by TheAafi above and myself below, editing can improve the article, and therefore would be preferable to deletion, per WP:ATD. Beccaynr (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, to respond to the suggestion that this is WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:BIO1E appears to clearly not apply, because the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, as demonstrated by the sources identified in this discussion, and there are sources covering Ghosh for more than one event, i.e. her student activism, injury, charges, and her later candidacy. In addition, WP:BLP1E appears to clearly not apply, because reliable sources are not covering Ghosh in the context of a single event, and based on the sources, she has not and is not likely to remain a low-profile individual, and the multiple events she has been involved in were substantial and her role has been well-documented. Beccaynr (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an interesting AFD discussion with many of my favorite people participating together. A treat! Agreed with my teacher Celestina007 that it doesn't cross WP:NPOL. One criteria of NPOL talks about massive following locally but the subject doesn't meet that either. I would also oppose the righteous Beccaynr when they say it is a significant event. As much as many would hate me, I think when WP:1E says significant, it means something much larger. An event relating to Student politics (according to me) won't become a part of it. This is of course open to interpretation and will depend on how much we sentimentally relate to what happened. All of this aside, I feel there is sufficient for WP:BASIC. The event has surely helped her launch herself and there is coverage about her beyond that one event. Hence, a keep from me. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily passes WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.-Danish Daniel 99 (talk) 12:40, 04 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iveta Gerlová[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS or satisfy GNG. No Fed Cup, Grand Slam or WTA Tour appearances. Her $25,000 tournament wins all come after 2007, so don't meet point 5 of tennis notability criteria. Jevansen (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jevansen (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cited sources insufficient for WP:GNG. The interview might be considered okay by some but GNG would require multiple sources showing significant coverage, the rest is just routine reporting, which doesn't establish notability or allow us to build a meaningful biography. Also doesn't meet NTENNIS as per nom. Czech source search didn't yield anything better than what is already in the article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AK-50[edit]

AK-50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks significant coverage in reliable (i.e. not self-published) independent (i.e. not interviews) secondary sources. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 COVID-19 scams. Content can be merged from behind the redirect if there is editorial desire to do so. Daniel (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical, Inc.[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Almost all of the sources are primary. The sources that aren't are on a single issue and there are only two of them. There seems to be a lack of significant coverage online, and I'm concerned about the coverage of living people (the founder and medical director) that is based almost entirely on primary sources. Bilby (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bilby (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the original page creator, I think it's important to keep an encyclopaedic record for some of the bigger COVID-19 scammers, both for purposes of historical record and public service. I am happy to make any changes suggested to make this article more suitable for inclusion.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is in an okay state imo, and there even are a few more sources to be found here and here. I can see where the concerns about primary sourcing on living people are coming from, but I don't think it's a problem here since searching for the CEO's name actually brings up more non-primary results again, for example here, here and here. An alternative would be to merge into COVID-19 scams and redirect there. --LordPeterII (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the sources your found about the company are still on the single issue. The problem is that there needs to be coverage about the organisation in general rather than on a specific topic. Merging might be a possible solution. - Bilby (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Since the coverage about the incident is pretty solid though, it could also remain an independent article but being renamed to be about the incident, not the company. Like e.g. "Golden Sunrise Nutraceutical, Inc. Covid-Treatment Scam" (although that specific title sounds a bit clumsy). --LordPeterII (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Might work, but it isn't really substantial coverage, either. Perhaps a couple of sentences in COVID-19 scams? The secondary sources so far are two local papers, a brief mention in Money.com, and what looks like a group blog. A search on Google News turns up a bit more, but there's just not a lot of coverage. - Bilby (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I made some minor edits. I don't see any major problems with the article, but it won't ruin my week if this gets deleted. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boldest of bold third relists for some more input on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Schmeidler[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. PepperBeast (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CREATIVE, including thanks to improvements to the article since it was nominated for deletion; per the sources, she has created a [...] well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work [has] been the primary subject [...] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. And it appears she founded an art gallery; WP:BASIC states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, so this also appears to be satisfied by the WP:SUSTAINED coverage over time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Witzke[edit]

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

Failed fringe candidate fails WP:NPOL. Not notable as a ""journalist"" either. If no consensus to delete, redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Delaware. KidAd • SPEAK 18:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as they seem to be covered widely enough in the media. Mathmo Talk 06:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: The sources that exist seem to just be routine election profiles and there wasn't anything specially notable that occurred. Curbon7 (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject appears to have 10+ reliable sources mentioning or covering them including NYT, Chicago Tribute, Haaretz, etc though none I found are dedicated articles, but they appear to be above trivial mentions. Per WP:NPOL '"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."' It appears to me that this person meets WP:GNG due to receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I suggest a Wikipedian politician expert should vote as well before a decision is reached. CosmicNotes (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per person above ⬆️ Sahaib (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Barros[edit]

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

Local politician who fails WP:POLITICIAN. No sign of notability beyond local politics. John B123 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just the routine local politics coverage. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 17:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, when is a politician too local or too routine for inclusion in Wikipedia? Appears to pass WP:GNG to me. NemesisAT (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes GNG which is specifically called out in WP:POLITICIAN, there's press coverage from before his mayoral bid (1, 2), a ton of expected but not overly notable coverage from announcement of his mayoral bid and through all the candidate forums, and then a few more deep dives recently (1, 2). EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation if the basis for notability changes in the future. Literally by definition, every candidate for mayor everywhere will always be able to show some evidence of campaign coverage in the local media of the city where they're running for mayor, precisely because giving equal time to candidates in local elections is literally local media's job — so if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to give candidates a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would never actually apply to anybody at all anymore. So no, run of the mill campaign coverage doesn't cut it — you need to demonstrate that either (a) he already had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of political candidacies (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) he could credibly claim that his candidacy was markedly more special than other people's candidacies, in such a way that even if he loses the election and never accomplishes another thing in his life, his candidacy itself would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway (the Christine O'Donnell test). But this article demonstrates neither of those things, so just having campaign coverage in the context of running for mayor isn't enough as it isn't any different from what every other person who ever ran for mayor of a city also has. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The coverage in the article isn't great, but coverage like [1] isn't about a political campaign. I think there's just enough to keep. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark M. Noble[edit]

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

Third-party candidate for a state legislature fails WP:NPOL miserably. KidAd • SPEAK 20:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing. KidAd • SPEAK 03:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with nominator, search for articles on this candidate produced nothing new that isn't already cited, which is mostly election listings and filings such as with the Ohio Secretary of State. Only 1 student newspaper article from his alma mater covers him significantly. Based on this, it does not rise to the level of meeting WP:SIGCOV at this time.
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, and the existence of a smattering of campaign coverage does not hand a candidate a GNG-based exemption from NPOL either — every candidate in every election can always show the existence of some campaign coverage, which would mean NPOL would never apply to anybody at all anymore. A candidate only gets a GNG-based exemption from having to hold an NPOL-passing office if either (a) they had preexisting notability for other reasons that already got them over GNG independently of the candidacy, or (b) their coverage nationalizes to such an extent that they have a credible claim to being a special case of much greater notability than most other candidates in some way that passes the ten year test for enduring importance — but neither of those things are in evidence here. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Academic year#United States. Clear consensus below not to keep this article, but unclear whether to delete, merge or redirect. Taking the ATD option of redirecting, with the content available behind the redirect if anyone wishes, of their own volition, to execute a merge. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School holidays in the United States[edit]

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

No reliable sources, many statements likely contain original research. School breaks and holidays vary widely by state and local school districts. In addition, this article is all redundant to Academic year#United States and there is no reason the United States needs a separate article. JayJayWhat did I do? 20:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shah Khusro Hussaini[edit]

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

Non-notable educationist, fails WP:BIO. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the equivalent of a university president and the recipient of two honorary doctorates. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There may be other grounds for keeping this, but I must point out that one of the honorary degrees is from Belford University, an unaccredited diploma mill. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete he is the president of a University founded in 2018 which is clearly not in the spirit of WP:NPROF: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.", I dont see this University as a "major academic institution". His awards including honorary degrees are from non-notable institutions with little academic credibility. He also fails all other points of WP:NPROF and fails WP:GNG. --hroest 18:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per hroest. Sometimes, a case for passing WP:PROF falls apart when examined: "awards" turn out to be not so meritorious, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take Notes[edit]

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

Non-notable software. The article is unreferenced. Google News has zero mentions for the software developers. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is non-notable.TH1980 (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elad Hazan[edit]

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

Non-notable computer scientist, fails WP:BIO. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Machine learning is a high-citation subfield of a high-citation field but nevertheless his citation record [2] shows an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. Speedy because the nomination is seriously faulty, not even considering the correct notability criterion (PROF not GNG). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't need to run Scopus citation metrics on this one. AdaGrad had a legit impact on the machine learning field, and not even just in DNN optimization. JoelleJay (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Added a WP:RS qualifying citation: https://www.nj.com/news/erry-2018/12/2bdd28c2e07022/selfdriving-cars-speech-recogn.html While the article is not dedicated to him, it describes the project he oversees, and mentions him as the leader of it. This is more than a trivial mention an helps establish this person as a notable expert. Based on the extensive publication record, this scientist appears to be prominent in his field and leads a high profile project with Google AI. Based on this new citation added, I believe this article should not be deleted at this time, but perhaps improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicNotes (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Passes PROF-C1 based on citations.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 18:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pinoy hip hop#History. Consensus just about exists that the article shouldn't be retained, so taking this option as a valid alternative to deletion. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dyords Javier[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Tagalog article is unreferenced. Claim to fame seems to be association with notable acts and shows. Redirect to Student Canteen as possible ATD? Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Search online in English (USA) did not identify any WP:RS qualifying source. zero found. However, this person does not sing in English, it would make sense that any coverage would not be in English, hence it is suggested that someone fluent in the language of his songs (Filipino) conduct a search for reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicNotes (talk • contribs) 08:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CosmicNotes: Most Philippine sources are in English. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Dyords is the brother of Danny Javier and he is the actor, comedian and singer. User:AnsrieJames9 (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AnsrieJames9: Notability is not inherited. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacks or Better[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFO; needs two or more reviews in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything other than the sole review, so I concur with this not passing NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NFILMS and WP:GNG. Except the single review from Variety, I found no other reliable independent sources that show significant coverage on the film. Given the lack of coverage, it does not appear to be notable enough to have a stand-alone article. --Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems weird that Variety is the only source for this but I really couldn't find any others. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 12:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pelita Nasi Kandar[edit]

Pelita Nasi Kandar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. This article is little more than a list of restaurants, a form of advertising, and contains no citations to back up any of the information, including whether it is notable. Ira Leviton (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. As the article currently stands, it is entirely unreferenced and promotional. HighKing++ 13:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 10:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 10:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Credible assertion of notability. Someone was putting the references into the external links section; I've moved them inline, added a third (fourth) (fifth). I do think we need to remove have removed the listing of all outlets as promotional, but this seems to be a notable-enough restaurant chain. —valereee (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Valereee, can you point to which reference in particular you believe meets the criteria for notability as per NCORP? I've looked at each and do not understand the basis for your !keep !vote based on the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. There are currently 5 references - the first is based on a company announcement and quotes from the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND. The second is also based on an interview and fails ORGIND. The third is based on an announcement/interview, fails ORGIND. The fourth is based on a rebuttal from the company and its execs, fails ORGIND. THe fifth is based on a company announcement and fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 20:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey, @HighKing! I think the Malay Mail piece certainly is sigcov. Not sure what you mean by 'based on an interview' -- the simple fact spokespersons are quoted doesn't make the piece a simple interview? Interview sigcov fails are typically simple transcripts of interviews, Q&As. The others are shorter, but the fact the business is being covered in multiple outlets for me would push it over the hump. All of these media have articles. Do we suspect this is paid coverage? —valereee (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Valereee, WP:ORGIND is key and especially the piece about "Independent Content". You say the Malay piece is merely spokespersons being quoted - but the article itself admits "Malay Mail Online spoke to one of Pelita's directors, Datuk K.K. Sihubutheen, to find out more about its past as well as its plans for the future". So that's pretty much the entire article. Can you point to somewhere in the article where the journalist provides their own opinion/analysis/etc because that it the requirement. You also say "the fact the business is being covered in multiple outlets for me would push it over the hump" and this appears to me that you favour a quantity over quality approach? That isn't how notability works I'm afraid. We need multiple (at least two from different publications) references which meet *both* WP:CORPDEPTH (not sigcov) and WP:ORGIND. Fair enough if you want to express an opinion rather than look closely at the guidelines, hopefully the closer can see that. HighKing++ 15:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    lol wow, so kind. :D —valereee (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, wasn't trying to be a smartarse but I can see what I wrote unintentionally looks unkind. HighKing++ 12:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This nomination was never transcluded to the daily log page until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 19:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I think this chain just scrapes over the line into notability, though if the consensus is otherwise you won't find me arguing too much. What makes me think the chain is just about notable is (a) its relative size: it's just about big enough to be known reasonably well in its home market, and (b) its Guinness Book entry. There are a few references in independent sources to this restaurant chain. It's not a global company, but it's a player in Malaysia. RomanSpa (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi RomanSpa, just thought I'd point out the following. It doesn't have a Guinness Book entry - the only mention of an entry in a Book of Records comes from the company themselves in one period of time in Jan 2017, is not independently validated, and is the Malaysian Book of Records which is a different kettle of fish entirely. Also, none of the references contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND - they all rely on interviews/announcements/quotations from the company. Can you revisit your !vote again please? HighKing++ 20:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 7 sources used on the page seem to carry enough weight and are published in major newspapers/magazines (even if some include quotes from spokespeople). They aren't republished press releases, since they were written by journalist for edited publications. A quick Google search also turned up these [3], [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuySomeApples (talk • contribs)
The criticism of the references were that they failed NCORP, specifically ORGIND. If you think all seven meet the criteria for establishing notability, can you explain which parts of those references contain "Independent Content"? You'll also need to expand on what you mean by "carry enough weight" as there's nothing in the guidelines that matches that criteria. You say the references aren't "republished" press releases - nobody said they were. What was said is that the articles *relied* entirely on interviews/announcements/quotations - to such an extent that there is no "Independent Content" in any of those articles. Finally (and ironically given what I've just said), both of the references you link to above also *rely entirely* on a company announcement with no "Independent Content". The FMT reference is based on an announcement - here's another from The Star that is word-for-word identical so I think you'll agree it cannot be "Independent Content". Same with the hmetro.com reference, all of the fact are attributed to the company/CEO via the announcement, no "Independent Content". HighKing++ 14:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has been improved significantly since nomination by Valereee and appears to pass WP:GNG. The article has been completely re-written since both delete votes. NemesisAT (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey NemesisAT, the appropriate SNG is WP:NCORP (not GNG) which places a large emphasis on the quality of references. Can you point to any reference that meets both CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND? Also, my Delete !vote above occurred *after* the modification by Valereee and to date nobody can point to a single reference that meets NCORP. HighKing++ 11:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PBOC Motorsports Club[edit]

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

Organization is not notable per WP:ORG. Last AfD was in January 2008 and resulted in a delete !vote, but the page was restored three months later—with no substantive content changes at the time. There is no SIGCOV in Florida newspapers. In 13 years, our standards have tightened enough that this organization is not fit for inclusion. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Possibly promotional article. Unable to find evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Does not appear to be being maintained by anybody knowledgeable in the subject area so even if the information was accurate it may well be outdated; although given the lack of accessible sources it's impossible to tell. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya shri nana lal ji maharaj sa (Nana)[edit]

Acharya shri nana lal ji maharaj sa (Nana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References to till date are not reliable and independent of the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. None of the cited sources seem to meet the standards of GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: seems like a promotional article -- DaxServer (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet GNG and seems like promotional content. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriy Andriyovych Sydorov[edit]

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

BLP with no actual references. Some external links but mostly broken and the one that works doesnt establish notability. Its clear there has been some edit warring. Is he notable? Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pinoy Big Brother: Connect#Housemates. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liofer Pinatacan[edit]

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

Actor notable only for having appeared in Pinoy Big Brother: Connect, a single season of Pinoy Big Brother. Suggest redirect to article about the show. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Neon Genesis Evangelion video games. Redirect preserves article history if there is future scope for a standalone article. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shinji and Good Friends[edit]

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

Possible ATDs are merge/redirect to Neon Genesis Evangelion or Gainax. This is unreferenced and has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. I couldn't establish it meets notability. However, I only read English, so may have missed something. Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Neon Genesis Evangelion video games#PC and console games -This group of minor games is actually already covered on that article, and basically has all of the information on them included already. I can't find any real coverage in reliable sources, and the article on these games in the Japanese Wikipedia is also completely unsourced, so I can't see any justification for keeping is as a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rorshacma, unless significant RS coverage can be found and stand-alone notability can be established (if these even exist, they are presumably Japanese print sources).--AlexandraIDV 09:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of the Dark Ones[edit]

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

Unref article which has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Tsukasa Kotobuki. I couldn't find evidence it meets WP:N, but am aware I may be missing something not in English. Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Link's sources, there is also some coverage in Japanese sources:
  • Inc, Aetas. "『ラグナロク』の安井健太郎，7年ぶりの新刊！ 「放課後ライトノベル」第129回は謎と陰謀渦巻く『アークIX』で命がけの戦いを". www.4gamer.net (in Japanese). Retrieved 2021-07-30. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help) - (SIGCOV in box at bottom of article)
  • 斎藤美奈子 (2001-11-09). 男女という制度 (in Japanese). 岩波書店. ISBN 978-4-00-026707-6.
Jumpytoo Talk 23:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhaguru[edit]

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

Non notable person who has received largely sponsored coverage. There is no significant coverage in independent sources for an article to be considered. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well, in India (Andhra Pradesh and Telegana) he is in the public censure after what he said about Hanuman in the Ramayana. That caused a lot of stir. He appears to be a devotee of Shirdi Sai Baba. I don't speak to whether he is a guru or not. However, agree with the nom, this fellow is non-notable and there are not sufficient reliable sources about him. Delete! --Whiteguru (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Idol Philippines. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gello Marquez[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​Please read WP:NACTOR. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Idol Philippines or in He's Into Her because the actor is not yet notable. NewManila2000 (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with NewManila2000, while they are noteworthy enough to be mentioned on either page, he does not have enough popularity to warrant a standalone page. N7o2h3 (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural keep per Andrew. No valid reason was provided for deletion. Daniel (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnotherapy in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

This article barely contains any references, so it either requires significant paring and overhaul, or simple deletion. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as AfD is not the place to take articles needing cleanup etc. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 23:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry G. Chmielewski[edit]

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

The subject seems to have written a lot of works, but I couldn't find any coverage about him. The citation rate could be the reason to keep the article, but all of the works with high rates are co-authored. For now he fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Less Unless (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead and Casliber: Is there an exception of some sort related to botanists? —Eewilson (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: the only issue concerning botanists is sometimes that they have authored a lot of names in only a few publications (e.g. a monograph) so can be considered notable on this account. However, a search of IPNI for "Chmiel." (note that "Chmiel" without the "." is a different person) yields only 11 names, all at an infraspecific rank, so he's not notable on this account. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds logical, then. I'll save the text of the article off in case he gets notable, but I have no objection to deletion. —Eewilson (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he had done a monograph on a genus tat would make him notable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No pass of WP:Prof: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. No pass of WP:Prof, see MA profile and given his age (Phd almost 40 years ago) I doubt this is a case of TOOSOON. I am not a botanist but it seems he mainly described subspecies. --hroest 18:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone can contribute in a perfectly solid way without passing WP:PROF (which, at least in part, is not about how much they have written but in how much has been written by others about them). If there are a bunch of biographical sources (or awards, etc, as shown in WP:PROF), speak up, but based on what's in the article and what I could find with a little searching, there don't appear to be. Question: if we delete the article should we unlinkify his name at List of botanists by author abbreviation (C), Symphyotrichum lanceolatum (two places where the abbreviation Chmiel. is linked), and any other such mentions (although those two were the only ones I noticed in "what links here"). It seems odd to have a redlink which invites re-creating an article which, unless people have new sources or something changes, wouldn't be kept. Kingdon (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Delete. (Article creator here.) I did the Google Scholar and JSTOR searches. Seems he's done a bit with chromosome counts that I hadn't seen. As has been said, I don't see major works, but a few important papers with John C. Semple. He is not an author of FNA, has not authored a monograph on a genus, etc. But I wonder if keeping the article and elaborating (I did it in a bit of a rush to — yes — get it started and get rid of the red link) on the work he has done would flesh out the notability question. @Kingdon: makes a good point. He is redlinked in a few places, but doesn't have to be. Wikipedia doesn't need an article on Jerry G. Chmielewski, and I'm not married to it one way or the other, but anyone who wishes to, have a quick look again. I'm too tired and my eyes can't focus/brain can't think to write more on him at this time or to again try to find more about him besides on ResearchGate, but maybe tomorrow. —Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn and no delete votes remain. Closing this as an uninvolved editor. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay to Goa (2007 film)[edit]

Bombay to Goa (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing of substance was found in a WP:BEFORE that could help support notability.

No critic reviews found. Zero critic reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. Found a few blog reviews, but those don't count toward notability.

PROD was removed with statement "Please...", with the addition of box office results as the added citation, which, again, just proves the film was released, not that it is notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC) WITHDRAWN due to newly added citations. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Donaldd23, I don't get the rush to delete an article when you are fully aware I'll do my best to improve it, as I always do with the many unjustified nominations you guys love submitting for deletion here. Most of what you said is, with all due respect, incorrect. Zero reviews? It appears to be untrue. Consider withdrawing the nomination as I'm working on it and there are plenty of sources, so your WP:BEFORE was probably not made correctly. Shahid • Talk2me 13:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note, Rotten Tomatoes is an American review-aggregation website. The English Wikipedia is not American, and its standards of notability should not depend on or be determined upon a subject's visibility in American media. Indian subjects are no less notable by virture of their coverage in the Indian press. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 13:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there are RELIABLE CRITIC reviews, then please add them. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, the review from Radiosargam that you added does not count as it is a BLOG. I was just pointing out that I checked Rotten Tomatoes and found nothing there. It isn't the only place I checked. Regardless of whether the film is English or not, it must still pass the requirements of WP:NFILM...there are no caveats that say, "the film can fail now because an editor is doing their best to improve it". If you can find RELIABLE sources (and I never said they have to be AMERICAN...that is YOUR word), then add them and if they make the film pass WP:NFILM, then other editors will support keeping this article. But, until then, it appears to fail, and Wikipedia is not a place for articles that FAIL notability requirements. If the article wasn't ready for publication then it should be in DRAFT until it passes. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, your comment "I don't get the rush to delete an article" is incorrect. The article was created in 2007 and it has had 14 years to have citations added to pass WP:NFILM. If 14 years is rushing to delete, then how many years must we wait to question an article's notability? DonaldD23 talk to me 15:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comment refers to the period of time between my removal of the PROD template and your submission of this AFD, which is just a few minutes. So far everytime I objected to the deletion of an article I took the time to improve the article in question (unless the nomination is totally uncalled for to begin with or someone else does the job) right away, and this case was no exception, as you see. Shahid • Talk2me 15:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 12:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent de Paul Society (Trinity College Dublin)[edit]

Vincent de Paul Society (Trinity College Dublin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Trinity College Dublin, but I don't think it's worth it. Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Incidentally, there's no way that it has 7,500 members. That would be more than half the university's undergraduates. More likely, it has 75. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: to Trinity_College_Dublin#Societies where SVDP, a minor society, is already mentioned. Maybe they mean 7,500 members of SVAP in Ireland, certainly not TCD members. ww2censor (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dozens of colleges and universities have clubs/societies which fundraise for the Saint Vincent de Paul charity. Including lots of universities in Ireland (like TCD [subject here], UCD, UCC, NUIG, etc). And universities outside Ireland (like Duquesne Uni, Niagra Uni, etc). There is nothing to indicate that the subject here (a "college conference" of the charity in TCD) has any notability independent of the main charity. Or independent of the university. WP:SIGCOV is not met (all we see is ROTM coverage of a college society mainly in sources associated with the college/society). And WP:CLUB is not met (this "branch" of the SVDP is not a "nationally well-known local organisation"; it is just a "branch" of an international org/charity). I'm not sure what a redirect gives us. Mine if a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 12:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Oldham[edit]

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

No evidence of any significant coverage in reliable sources found during my search. Books appear to be self-published (publisher is Raven who describe their business model as having included self publishing). I don't have the kind of thing against self-published authors that some on here seem to (it actually seems like a cool thing to do to me) but there's no notability for this guy that I can see, especially not enough to reach WP:NAUTHOR. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply existing as a writer is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself — the notability test is not "his books exist", but "his books have been the subject of external coverage and analysis, such as book reviews or news articles about him winning a noteworthy literary award". It is certainly possible for self-published writers to get enough reliable source coverage to establish their notability — Terry Fallis did it with The Best Laid Plans — but that hasn't been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 12:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raine Davison[edit]

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

Non-notable actress per WP:NACTOR since she does not have multiple significant credits. – DarkGlow • 10:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 10:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 10:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 10:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 10:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - absolutely no news on her in Google news and few first pages of Google doesn't show any significant news. Peter303x (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawing nomination (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 09:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palayathu Vayal Govt. UP School[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable primary school. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 09:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4030 Call System[edit]

4030 Call System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It does not have the necessary reputation and is in the form of advertising. Persia ☘ 08:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – assessing notability is always difficult when you're dealing with de facto state-controlled media, but I think there's enough here to meet the GNG. [5] [6] [7] [8] do seem to provide significant coverage, and the sources are some of Iran's largest media outlets. Any issues with promotional/non-neutral content can be worked out via editing, but I don't think deletion is the correct solution for something that's clearly a major part of Iran's COVID-19 response. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is advertising. PARSA (TALK)
  • Keep, per the assessment by Extraordinary Writ. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has the necessary notability; especially with the increase of Corona issues and content on a daily basis, the reputation of this system is also increasing (although it is still famous). There are also similar articles such as Tehran Bus Rapid Transit (in several languages) and other systems, which can somehow indicate the notability of popular or widely used systems. Likewise, Extraordinary Writ mentioned a true point that: "that's clearly a major part of Iran's COVID-19 response". Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough references to meet GNGJackattack1597 (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Serafini[edit]

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

Prod deleted by @NemesisAT:. Subject fails WP:NFOOTY since the Chilean second division is not fully-pro. Either way fails WP:GNG; the best source is a quick interview with Serafini published on what looks to be a fan blog. The rest are game previews/reports, passing mentions and databases. A Google search doesn't yield much either. JTtheOG (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not only per WP:HEY ―like NemesisAT (talk) says―, also because there are (apart from the blog) at least five secundary sources that directly talks about him in its content despite its titles talks about general facts which involve Serafini (like the triumph over Unión Temuco on 2 September 2012 or the ANFP website note about Lota's 2013 pre-season which refers to him as a historical player). By the other hand, Chilean Second Division is professional enough and the really not fully pro-league is the Third Division, level that is formaly professional since 2011. Hoping that you are well, and without other particular, I stay tuned to your replies. Carigval.97 (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC; Chile)
  • Keep: Article improvement by @Carigval.97 matches with WP: Hey. 6UNK3R (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC; Chile)
    • Comment: Appears to be a case of WP:CAST. JTtheOG (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: No, guy. I’m arguing according to points established in WP: Hey, because the initial case of the associate professor David Heymann coincides with Javier Serafini’s article, which after the deletion notice gradually went from having six references to twenty, added to official statistics. I think the corrections that @Carigval.97 has made match with the four expressions described at the end of the WP: Hey article. If you have doubts with the IP address you can verify it. 6UNK3R (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC; Chile)
  • Question - please can someone provide the WP:THREE best sources about Serafini? I can't see any significant coverage apart from the fan blog. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Ok, no problem @Spiderone: Here there are the sources that explicitly talks about Serafini: 1) Blog[1], 2) Game against Magallanes where he was the man of the match[2] and the 2012's video that verify his participation and two of their three goals[3] By the other hand, here there are the other sources which talks about general facts where Serafini was decisive: 1) the 1–0 triumph over Temuco[4][5] and 2) the ANFP note which referres him as an historical player.[6] Respect to this last point, I was in charge of supporting that information in statistical data that prove the importance of Serafini in Lota as the sixth player with most participations into the last professional era of the club (2002–2015); See the introduction where the article talks about Serafini's valoration alongside Rodrigo Véliz. Carigval.97 (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. If those are the best sources available, then GNG is failed here. I'll do a full source analysis. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG per my analysis of the sources below. Those citing WP:HEY are referring to the quantity of the references but none of them meet the requirements of being both reliable and containing significant detail focused on Serafini rather than just the teams that he has played for. Some of the articles don't even mention Serafini once and the rest of the reliable sources only mention him 1 or 2 times. This article is just a synthesis of blog coverage and stats pages. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://aguantelota.blogspot.com/2011/04/fondo-con-javier-serafini.html ? No Blogspot is unacceptable as a source, clear Wikipedia consensus on this ~ It's a fairly basic Q&A ✘ No
https://www.livefutbol.com/ficha_jugador/javier-serafini/ Yes Yes No Stats page ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0TiVooMAHQ&ab_channel=FutbolCreaciones No No No indication that this is a reputable channel No ✘ No
https://www.biobiochile.cl/noticias/2012/02/03/lota-schwager-debutara-en-collao-ante-union-temuco-en-primera-b.shtml Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.anfp.cl/noticia/16217/lota-schwager-comenzo-su-pretemporada No Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.bdfa.com.ar/lista_jugadores.asp?codigo=908&orden=ApellidoJugador&modo=DESC&cat=1 Yes Yes No Listed once ✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/matches/2010/01/30/chile/primera-b/deportes-naval/lota-schwager/899821/ Yes Yes No Soccerway match reports have no coverage ✘ No
https://www.football-lineups.com/footballer/44714/?t=496&s=878 Yes No Cites Wikipedia No Stats page ✘ No
https://www.football-lineups.com/match/67357/ Yes No No Stats ✘ No
https://www.emol.com/noticias/deportes/2010/11/22/448347/resultados-12-fecha-de-la-fase-final-de-primera-b.html Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.football-lineups.com/match/89128/ Yes No No Stats ✘ No
https://www.cooperativa.cl/noticias/deportes/futbol/chile/audax-italiano-derroto-a-s-morning-en-la-florida/2010-11-19/180546.html Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.espn.cl/futbol/partido/_/juegoId/309982 Yes Yes No Stats only ✘ No
https://200.91.40.217/cdf/primera-b/lota-gano-por-el-honor-ante-el-campeon-m-iquique/2010-11-28/183005.html Yes ? No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.latercera.com/noticia/u-la-calera-esta-a-un-triunfo-de-volver-a-primera-tras-25-anos/ Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.football-lineups.com/match/89133/ Yes No No Stats ✘ No
https://www.football-lineups.com/match/114176/ Yes No No Stats ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20210731152311/https://200.91.40.217/cdf/primera-b/video-habla-serafini-el-heroe-de-lota-en-el-empate-frente-a-magallanes/2011-09-20/105758.html Yes Yes ~ Routine interview at the end of a match, no way is this enough to justify an article ~ Partial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5xti5ZY9uQ&ab_channel=SigaelDeporte No No No indication of fact checking for this channel No ✘ No
http://aguantelota.blogspot.com/2011/09/con-mas-corazon-que-futbol-magallanes-1.html No No Blogspot No Passing mentions only ✘ No
https://www.biobiochile.cl/noticias/2012/02/03/lota-schwager-debutara-en-collao-ante-union-temuco-en-primera-b.shtml Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.football-lineups.com/match/123794/ Yes No No Stats ✘ No
https://www.football-lineups.com/footballer/44714/?t=847&s=878 Yes No No Stats ✘ No
https://www.soychile.cl/Coronel/Deportes/2012/09/02/116560/Lota-Schwager-gana-como-local-10-Union-Temuco.aspx Yes Yes No Routine match report, no depth ✘ No
https://www.soychile.cl/Temuco/Deportes/2012/09/02/116475/Union-Temuco-salta-a-la-cancha-para-medirse-con-Lota-Schwager-en-Coronel.aspx Yes Yes No Match report mention, no depth ✘ No
https://www.soychile.cl/Coronel/Deportes/2013/02/03/152266/Mas-de-500-hinchas-de-Lota-Schwager-participaron-de-la-presentacion-del-plantel-2013-en-la-Tarde-Minera.aspx Yes Yes No Another match report that fails to analyse Serafini in detail ✘ No
https://www.football-lineups.com/footballer/44714/?t=1031&s=878 Yes No No Stats ✘ No
https://www.football-lineups.com/match/151745/ Yes No No Stats ✘ No
http://www.tigosports.com.py/futbol/rambert-vera-resalta-todo-lo-vivido-con-la-seleccion Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.elfutbolero.com.ec/liga-pro-bdp/2021/2/20/figura-campeon-con-liga-de-quito-lo-que-hace-en-la-actualidad-enrique-vera-12272.html Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/-/114598/ Yes Yes No Every footballer has a Soccerway page, it's not indicative of notability ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, now I really understand, @Spiderone: I'll accept any future result (surely the deletion). Carigval.97 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Carigval.97: thank you. The discussion is still open, though, and any user is welcome to contest any of my opinions in the table above and/or bring extra sources into the table which have detailed analysis of Serafini in some way or form. Worth noting that, in some cases, no amount of effort can bring an article to pass GNG and some footballers just don't meet the criteria, unfortunately. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Base sources about Serafini[edit]

  1. ^ "A fondo con: Javier Serafini". Aguante Lota. 25 April 2011. Retrieved 29 June 2021.
  2. ^ "Habla Serafini, héroe de Lota en el empate frente a Magallanes". Wayback Machine (CDF). 20 September 2011. Retrieved 31 July 2021.
  3. ^ "Javier Serafini HD". YouTube. 15 April 2012. Retrieved 31 July 2021.
  4. ^ "Lota Schwager ganó 1-0 como local a Unión Temuco". Soy Chile. 12 September 2012. Retrieved 31 July 2021.
  5. ^ Tobares, Robinson (2 September 2012). "Unión Temuco perdió 1-0 frente a Lota Schwager en Coronel". Soy Chile. Retrieved 29 July 2021.
  6. ^ "Lota Schwager comenzó su pretemporada". ANFP. 4 January 2013. Retrieved 29 July 2021.
  • Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG (thanks to Spiderone for the comprehensive review of available sources). Jogurney (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Darabi[edit]

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

The person in question does not meet the criteria of recognition and customized and received money Persia ☘ 07:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:BASIC, People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with Whiteguru, a google search for this person did not reveal any significant coverage meeting Wikipedia standards. As this person is based in Iran, someone from that country should conduct the search, perhaps there are sources we are not finding or are in a different language. If this is the case, I would consider revising the vote. CosmicNotes (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:BASIC no significant coverage. Zackdasnicker (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhawarilal Samra English High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL as there are only limited references showing its existence and no significant coverage in reliable sources. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the existence of a secondary school does not establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as per nom, non-notable English High School. No references given, article fails WP:NSCHOOL. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom and above a non notable school fails GNG. Slovenichibo (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom-they have had seven years to add a reference. In webpage there is a hint of a cluster of schools - nothing to merge with.ClemRutter (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails notability -- DaxServer (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of any notability. Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 22:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 12:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FSA NTC[edit]

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

Non-notable association football training program and team. Fails GNG, NFOOTY and NSPORTS --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sport in South Australia#High performance sport. There isn't really anything of note to merge, though the article history will remain if someone wishes to do so. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Australian Sports Institute[edit]

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

Non-notable sports/educational organization. Zero references. GNG and NSPORTS not met. BlameRuiner (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: In recent weeks there has been press coverage of government funding for a new centre for this Institute. I have added a couple of the non-paywalled items as article references. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MS Australia[edit]

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

Promotional article for non-notable organization, fails WP:NORG. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - MS Australia is the peak body for multiple sclerosis advocacy and research in Australia. They feature regularly in television news broadcasts [9] and print newspapers [10], not to mention online [11] where their representatives are cited as technical experts and advocates. Arguably, some of their events like the MS Read-athon [12] and the May 50k are notable in their own right. The view held by MS Australia with regard to Government policy is considered significant enough that MS Australia's CEO is the most prominent person cited in a number of technical and editorial articles [13], including in relation to international research [14]. Even second and third-level MS Australia functionaries (like individual program coordinators) are cited because they represent MS Australia [15]. I accept that WP:BEFORE is challenging here because searching for "MS Australia" gets so many seemingly unrelated hits... but I would suggest most of them are actually related and loop back to MS Australia; coverage is simply that voluminous. St★lwart111 06:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs to be more encyclopedic in style and tone, BUT the organisation is notable. There is more than sufficient referencing in independent publications with editorial supervision to establish notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Stalwart111 and Aoziwe, and per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Deus et lex (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Considering that nobody actually opposes deletion. Sandstein 15:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkegaard v Smith[edit]

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

None of the references are actually secondary RS regarding the case, most are just regarding the background of the subjects who are already controversial. Reference 1 is the closest to being usable, but is not sufficient on its own. I note that neither of the parties is notable either. Furthermore, creator has an undisclosed COI. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Even if there is media coverage of this case (which there doesn't appear to be anyway), it would only be because Kirkegaard is a controversial figure; the lawsuit itself is wholly unremarkable. Mlb96 (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are you really saying that it is impossible to find media discussion of K's expressed opinions? Even in the US I've certainly heard about them. Captain Eek, you say "the subjects who are already controversial" If they are, and there is media coverage--how could he be controversial otherwise--, then he would be notable, or was this decided otherwise? Assuming he is, then the discussion of the case can be incorporated into that article. I'm mainly reacting--I don't see how a case of this sort could not be notable, but I'm asking, because I haven;t really investigated enough yet. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, Well neither of the subjects have articles. The WikiLink for Kirkegaard in the page redirects to OpenPsych, a controversial journal he founded. But no one has made him a page yet. Since he doesn't even have an article, it feels like a stretch to have an article about a court-case about him when the case hasn't been picked up by the media and isn't of importance to legal scholarship. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, Also, you may simply have heard of him because he was a Wikipedian: User:Deleet and was banned by ArbCom. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard of him that way,; but i've also seen it otherwise, and when I saw this yesterday,I did not even make the connection., tho several people here have since reminded me. The utter outrageousness of his proposal has given it at least notoriety. I understand perfectly well why anyone would want to avoid giving it furthrr publicity, and for anyone here, perhaps especially because of the wp connection. I don't know that this should be a factor, and I must admit I am not particularly eager to search for material on it. DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Price[edit]

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

not yet notable. Principal dancers in a major company are notable, but she isn't at that rank yet. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All the sources seem to show the dancer as part of the boston ballet, none focus on her, searching online I was not able to find any dedicated articles meeting Wikipedia reliable sources (WP:RS). Based on this, it seems not to meet WP:ENT for notability yet. If reliable sources focused on this person is added to the page I would update this vote. Of course a new page can be created in the future if notability requirements are met as the person progresses through their career. CosmicNotes (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails the GNG -- nothing but casual mentions. (As to whether principal dancers in a major company are presumptively notable, this doesn't apply to Price, of course, but that's a SNG I've never heard of: could someone link to that?) Ravenswing 09:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case they meet the GNG, and the point is moot. A statement of "Principal dancers in a major company are notable" -- presuming, of course, there's guideline governing what constitutes a "major company" -- is incorrect if there isn't an actual SNG stating so. Ravenswing 17:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no dedicated source on her, who is right now at the lowest rank in a major ballet company. Corachow (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheat sheet[edit]

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

Essentially unreferenced (the one "reference" is a link to a document which is an example of a cheat sheet), and tagged as such for 6 years. By the time you've gotten rid of all the WP:OR, there's nothing left. My own searching finds lots of uses of the term, but no secondary sources that discuss the topic in an encyclopedic way. (i.e. anything more than a dictdef). One thought was to redirect to Reference card, but that's more of the same. This is the kind of article that was acceptable in 2006 (when this was originally written) but now we've got notability guidelines that demand more. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but with the clear acknowledgement that my !vote should probably be given less weight because this sort of thing is my sort of thing. In all seriousness, I'm generally of the view that these sorts of idioms and phraseology that have found their way into common vernacular have a place on Wikipedia. I totally understand why this has been nominated, but I remain of that view. St★lwart111 04:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've now added some content, cleaned other content up, and added a handful of references. Some are better than others but I think the totality is probably enough that it meets our WP:GNG. St★lwart111 04:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with thanks to St★lwart for his work. RomanSpa (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a ready reference for nominators which is a good checklist of what's expected. If this had been followed correctly then numerous sources would have been found. Here's some examples:
  1. Do students learn course material during crib sheet construction?
  2. Reducing test anxiety while increasing learning: The cheat sheet
  3. Crib sheets help students prioritize and organize course content
  4. Cheating in the Educational Process:(An Experiment in Crib-Sheet Studies)
  5. Veterinary students' use of crib sheets in preparing for learning and reducing stress
  6. Do crib sheets improve student performance on tests? Evidence from principles of economics
  7. Cheat Sheet or Open-Book? A Comparison of the Effects of Exam Types on Performance, Retention, and Anxiety.
  8. The cheat-sheet: Efficient coding device or indispensable crutch?
  9. Benefits of a “Cheat Sheet”
  10. The birth of an organizational resource: The surprising life of a cheat sheet
  11. Improving Precision of Grammatical Error Correction with a Cheat Sheet
  12. The Cheat Sheet as an Instrument of Study and Learning in HCI Tests
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Reference card. These are not separately notable topics and can and should be discussed together. Reywas92Talk 21:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to improvements by Stalwart111 since nomination. However, merging to Reference card as suggested above isn't a bad idea as long as all content is kept. NemesisAT (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice how none of the sources that I listed above call this a reference card. That's because they are not the same thing. A reference card is typically a given; something that comes with a product or manual. A cheat/crib sheet, on the other hand, is typically prepared by the user and this process of creation is a significant aspect in the studies listed above. Also note that reference card is in worse shape than the page in question and arguably ought to be merged itself to something like ready reference. But that redirects to handbook and that's the danger of over-enthusiatic merger – you can end up under an inappropriate title which tends to surprise the reader and encourage improper synthesis. Better to keep it simple and follow the sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this, and I think we're in general agreement here. I would support a merge over a deletion, but really these pages should both be kept under their own titles. Reader confusion is a good point, and I agree. NemesisAT (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Hortensja Dąbek[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Possibly COI - primary contributor User:Wangwendy730 has edited this article only. intforce (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayaka Nakagawa[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Being eliminated after the second stage at the Chopin competition does not make her notable. The Campillos International Piano Competition is also not a major competition. intforce (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find any news coverage on her in Japanese. lullabying (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xu Qi[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Primary contributor User:Cnwikiwriter has edited this article only. Also note that the photo on Commons was uploaded by a user named "Qixu". intforce (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there aren't any more references then delete. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 XVIII International Chopin Piano Competition. Daniel (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Szuyu Rachel Su[edit]

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

No reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO – listed awards are mostly local competitions and in the few notable ones (e.g. Leeds) she has not placed in the top three. Also includes dubious competitions like "1st Internet Competition" or "Music Talent Competition". Previously also listed an "award" at the 2015 Chopin Competition, even though she got eliminated in the preliminaries. Primary contributor User:Amazingawesome has edited this article only. I'm sensing some COI here. intforce (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: There are exactly zero references in the article. Citing them here is interesting but it doesnt change the article one bit. Victuallers (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am supporting a redirect. I am not supporting retaining a standalone article with the current available sourcing. Cunard (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Pimblett[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion (UFC/Invicta) and also fails GNG for info of fights are merely routine reports. Cassiopeia(talk) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel like this guy is notable enough. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AfD is not about how an editor feels about the subject but based on if the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Cassiopeia(talk) 01:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Your argument for declining GNG is "fails GNG for info of fights are merely routine reports." So how would you evaluate other reliable sources that are not routine reports about fights but are about the subject himself? Some examples are: mmafigting, mmajukie, insider, yahoo (original from mma junkie) and bbc.
Thanks Wickedwiki2 (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wickedwiki2: I have struck your keep vote since you changed your vote to delete below. Papaursa (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I understand you are the the creator of the page and want the article to be kept. However, you need to understand the Wikipedia notbility requirements. Notability need to be supported by significant coverage from independent. reliable sources and the subject is talked about in length and in dept and not merely mentioned. All the source provided fails the mentioned agove for all the sources are not independent, accept for "yahoo (original from mma junkie)" source, due to the sources are from interview articles. The only IRS, "yahoo (original from mma junkie)", is a very brief article about the subject has been signed by the promotion and that is not and in dept article about the subject. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having gone through the existing policies in more detail, I can see why this article is not quite ready for mainspace. I am changing my vote to Delete. Thanks to all the editors who took their time to review this nomination. Wickedwiki2 (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Wickedwiki2 im with you on this one pal, this article shouldn't be deleted because one person decides the fighter hasn't fought in "top-tier promotions", that's ridiculous lol Sixone63 (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
try find some more sources and info regarding the fighter so they don't have any excuses to delete your work, ill try help a bit later on with updating and sourcing some info. Sixone63 (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seems to me that sports personalities are so hit&miss on wiki. I feel like the subject is notable in his 'area' but the references are thin and Twitter is not valid IMO.CaliBuds (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really see widespread coverage on mainstream websites, just mma centric ones where they talk about his most recent fight or the one coming up. I understand there is some hype around him, but he hasn't done anything in his career that is renowned or that shows that he is world class fighters. HeinzMaster (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MMA guidelines and WP:GNG RafaelHP (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He does not meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters at WP:NMMA. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting/promotion and not significant independent coverage as WP:GNG requires. At best it's WP:TOOSOON to claim he's notable and also requires a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_July_30&oldid=1037580173"