Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 25	June 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Futuro Primitivo[edit]

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

I couldn't find any third-party reliable sources to confirm the subject's notability per WP:MUSICBIO. The article was tagged for notability at least since 2016. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The two references are from blogs. Cambalachero (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K10C: Kids' Ten Commandments[edit]

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

~~(I don’t know why the link is broken. Page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K10C:_Kids%27_Ten_Commandments)~~

Non-notable series. Besides a near-total lack of potential sources it was already nominated for deletion once before but kept on flimsy grounds amounting to “they tried really hard to source it, so we’ll keep it out of pity”. Dronebogus (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the broken link. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much! Dronebogus (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's been fourteen years since the last AfD, and this article still doesn't have any inline citations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, it's been around for ages with no change or meaningful citations, and it simply doesn't pass WP:GNG. Edit: The article comes across as promotional too given how much space is given to characters. Reads like it's trying to puff itself Tautomers_{(T C)} 23:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG with no reliable coverage available. Jaysonsands (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I thought for sure there would be evidence of the awards it won, but I couldn't find anything. The Parent's Choice website only lists winners back to 2018 (and they gave out 158 awards in three years). The Telly Awards website only goes back to 2007, but K10C came out in 2006. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 05:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Hanna[edit]

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

Not seeing enough in the article or elsewhere to pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Redirect to Thinkwell Group. Edwardx (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep My mistake - did not see the very recent AfD. Ooops! Edwardx (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. "Chief creative officers" are not inherently notable. KidAd • SPEAK 23:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Per nom, also indepth coverage available [1] to pass GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of games with support for high-fidelity image upscaling. czar 23:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of games with FSR support[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

I don't see how on earth this qualifies to be a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a support website. Article fails WP:GNG and probably more than that. Govvy (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So its the same thing as the page for DLSS support. The page isn't fully complete yet and needs a little work but its an informative article. 7Prefix7 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

agree, see List of games with ray tracing support and List of games with DLSS support --92.206.225.115 (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree? You logged out of your username to post from your IP raises a red flag if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too, this page is just like the page on DLSS support. DLSS is limited to Nvidia GPUs while FSR works on both AMD and NVIDIA GPUs. Amir Abdullah (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an informative page just like the DLSS one. Badhunter0303 (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too, it's just like the DLSS page, it's too early to judge while the page is still being written and maintained. Edit: seeing the other discussions, and the fact that the DLSS page has been merged into a unified List of games with support for high-fidelity image upscaling then I highly recommend to merge this as well into that, it will be much easier to maintain and more helpful for the community than two separate articles, especially when the list becomes longer and some games can support both technologies in the same time. Xajel (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grovy you seem to be making a conspiracy theory that person has been making edits without an account. This is also an informative article you seem emotionally invested in trying to get removed for unknown reasons this isn't a support page no one is helping people figure out fixes for things its just a collection of information about a technology similar to the pages I have helped on with DirectX and other technologies. This is also the exact same as the DLSS article which is up. 7Prefix7 (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, if pages like List of games with DLSS support and List of games with ray tracing support are to be allowed, then I don't see why this one wouldn't be. Are those similarly "Support articles?" If you would like to delete those (not necessarily deleting the article describing Deep learning super sampling of course) then I suppose I'd tend to agree. Obviously I haven't contributed much or logged in much recently; but I was looking at this article and noticed the deletion request. I think Svetroid has sound logic that would include this, as per their post on the talk page of List of games with DLSS support: "At any rate, I believe this article as well as this this related article deserve to stay up as standalone pages due to the lack of online centralized resources providing this specific information, where Wikipedia is perfect for filling in that gap. Svetroid (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)" Perhaps it's lacking some refinement, but it otherwise feels as valid as the many other lists of games meeting very specific criteria. Silvershot10 (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected a mistake where I linked to the wrong article. Silvershot10 (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FidelityFX Super Resolution and slightly refocus to be a general article on the technology, rather than a list of games. There are a few decent references in the article, but they're mainly focused on the technology in general, rather than lists of games that support it. Since there only seems to be 19 games that support/have announced support for the tech I don't think the list is long enough to require a split into a separate article at the moment, and the current lead does a decent job of summarising what the technology is. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after making my prior post, I thought this might be a better option; or moving both of them to GPUOpen. FSR itself might only be stub worthy at the moment; and it's part of the GPUOpen library. A list of games/software that supports GPUOpen and its different features might be more valuable. Silvershot10 (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that there are multiple in depth sources covering the technology - both the pieces by the verge and the piece by PC gamer are substantial, reliable, independent coverage - so the technology itself appears to be notable. The list of games, however, is mostly sourced to press releases and promotional material, so it does not appear to satisfy WP:LISTN. If a substantial number of games add support for the technology there may be an argument for a standalone list serving a useful navigational purpose per WP:LISTPURP, but with so few entries I'm not seeing any reason why this couldn't be integrated into the article on the technology for now. I would remove the unsourced table of "developers that have pledged to support FSR" rework the sentence about Microsoft supporting the technology into the lead and refocus the article on the technology, part of which could include a list of games that support it. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments My name is spelt Govvy, not Grovy, lets see, what Wikipedia is not. We have WP:NOTDIR Wikipedia is not a directory, there is WP:NOTGUIDE and certainly it's not a support website. Which I feel the article and the others of this type kinda violate. Do you see where I am coming from? I don't use reddit that much, and I am use to sock-puppetry. I've never heard or ever seen mass reddit interference before to an AfD and I've been editing wikipedia on and off for years! Now I learned something new, you can exploit reddit for ones gain at AfD. Although all very interesting, I fail to see how any of the comments above have provided any solid wikipedia policy based arguments for keeping. Govvy (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a fair assessment. There is, however, a significant number of articles which are very similar to this one. It'd be quite the undertaking to try to delete all of them. Silvershot10 (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy this list fits the exact same as dozens of other similar lists. Also please stop spreading conspiracy theories against me or I am going to report you to the admins. There is nothing about this list that makes it violate any wikipedia rules and unless you are going to remove all these similar lists like list of games with ray tracing technology, list of games with dlss support and even things like list of unreal engine games etc this list should stand. This is not a support page its an informative standalone list that just mentions the games that support it. You seem very disingenuous in this argument and very emotionally pushed to want this gone for unknown reasons. This is a popular technology where people are constantly googling to figure out what games have support for and wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of information for various topics to help people in need of information. 7Prefix7 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the statement above "A list of games/software that supports GPUOpen and its different features might be more valuable." by silvershot it could actually be good to fit it there because of the way other lists are on wikipedia especially considering that we have a page for RTX games and DLSS games separately because they are different. GPU open is a huge suite of tools and as of right now FSR has not been added to GPUOpen its only coming soon. It has already been released as a standalone tech and implemented in 8 games with dozens of studios pledging to support it in new titles. 7Prefix7 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories? You can't even spell me name right, that's pretty much a fact! I don't trust you, you've already shown you have violated WP:COPYVIO, you haven't given any wikipedia policy response for keeping the article yet. There is already an ANI post, you can complain there about me, but I doubt anyone would be interested! Govvy (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helping people is more important than following some rules/policies (depends on the rules/policies that are being broken of course and the people that is being helped). And Govvy, “Complaining about a problem without posing a solution is called whining.” Badhunter0303 (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page is fine, informative, and absolutely in line with Wikipedia policies. There are plenty of List pages, from List of Netflix original programming to List of Bethesda Softworks video games and List of compositions by Richard Strauss to probably several hundreds more. All are quite useful, I know I use some of them several times a week. 128.140.142.58 (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not as well-versed with Wikipedia's guidelines as Govvy, but as a technology journalist, I find pages like these to be incredibly helpful when doing research - and isn't research the reason people come to Wikipedia? These are not "support" pages. They are useful to gamers who care about the technologies. --Deathspawner (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Wikipedia is not a directory or guide. This seems to be an indiscrimate list rather than anything encyclopedic. doktorb _words^deeds 04:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the consideration of discussion participants and admins reviewing this DR: the creator of the article recently shared it on Reddit's /r/Amd, a community about the company that created the technology that is the subject of the article. The post is currently the second most upvoted submission in this community that has almost a million subscribers and several thousand concurrent users, and in the comment section of the post, the hate train on "Wikipedia gatekeepers" is in full swing due to the deletion request. Also, the comments here about "other list articles" echo comments made there. This may explain the presence and activity by some IPs and users with little previous activity.

In fact, it seems the idea for creating this article was suggested in that same community a couple of days before the article itself was shared as a submission. Just something to consider when evaluating the discussion here. --Veikk0.ma 04:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least for now. As already stated by others, Wikipedia is not a directory (there are plenty of list articles that shouldn't exist, so that's not an excuse), and there is another article which merges information on games with high-fidelity image upscaling technology, which currently includes both DLSS and FSR and has the potential to also be useful for other such technologies as well.

Furthermore, the technology has only been out for less than a week. It remains to be seen whether FSR will establish itself as the kind of widely known-about and long-term marketed technology in the same way as DLSS has. Because AMD has stated that FSR will be released under an MIT license somewhere around mid-July, it's possible it will become so ubiquituous that making a list of games that use it wouldn't make sense, just like a list of games using MSAA or various other technologies in common use today wouldn't make sense. And since MIT licenses are highly permissive, marketing around the feature, AMD branding, or even the use of the name "FidelityFX Super Resolution" won't be required of the games that use the technology. The current wave of games using FSR are doing so explicitly in partnership with AMD, since the technology isn't yet open-source.

Waiting costs nothing. If a dedicated list article seems appropriate in a few months, the page can be re-created. In the meantime, interested editors can help improve the page List of games with support for high-fidelity image upscaling. --Veikk0.ma 05:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of games with support for high-fidelity image upscaling, at the very least this appears to be an unnecessary fork of an existing article, opinion on whether they count as a directory notwithstanding._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of games with support for high-fidelity image upscaling. This was created as someone on Reddit was slightly annoyed that there was an article on list of games with DLSS support (which has been merged to the aforementioned) but not one on the equivalent AMD technology. [2] [3] Merging is the completely reasonable option and will solve all of our problems. We don't need a separate article on this or DLSS and I don't doubt that the list of all games that support this tech is notable enough for its own page. The hype about Reddit canvassing is overblown given that the OP of that thread didn't actually canvass but merely linked the article which wasn't nominated for deletion at the time. That being said I would like to see an inline citation for every entry. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List_of_games_with_FSR_support and maintain and update the merge List of games with support for high-fidelity image upscaling as long as having a list with FSR supported games is still useful. Badhunter0303 (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Badhunter0303: That should be a merge or at least redirect rather than delete, this article title is very much a plausible search term._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Chess. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viacheslav Vershinin[edit]

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

I originally used WP:PROD but it was removed by another editor so I will use this method. This is an insufficiently noteworthy scientist whom fails to meet WP:PROF guidelines, as outlined in the below section

Arguments for Deletion[edit]

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

No. This individual does not have a google scholar page nor can I find an h-score via that. However, ResearchGate shows he has close to 60 publications, and has been cited around 150 times.^[1] Another source Publons states he has an h-score of 6.^[2] Considering he has been a prof for more than 30 years, this is pretty bad and unremarkable and does not come close to the standard.

I fully agree, but it's worth noting that the "standard" varies with the discipline. For a chemist h = 6 is pretty poor, but would OK (I think) for someone whose publications mainly concerned mediaeval Persian poetry, for example. Athel cb (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2.The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Likely No. He appears to recently won one national award in Russia,^[3] (requires google translate) but it does not strike me as high honor within Russia, and I could not find another source to verify this (this is difficult due to all sources being in russian. Google translate is decent but it is still hard to navigate). He does not appear to have won any international awards.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

No. Difficult to totally verify, and he does seem to have joined some socieities, but none that would meet the standards of this criteria.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

No. He seems well respected and regarded, but I could not verify this as significant or influential, only simply praised.

5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

No. I could not find any mention of this, again language limitations make this difficult.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

No. Does not seem to be the case, and could not find anything.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

No. Also does not seem to be the case, maybe on a local level but that is not significant enough.

8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

No. Could not find evidence of this either.

References

^ Vershinin, Viacheslav. "Viacheslav Vershinin". ResearchGate. ResearchGate. Retrieved 26 June 2021.
^ Vershinin, Viacheslav. "Viacheslav I. Vershinin". Publons. Publons. Retrieved 26 June 2021.
^ Vershinin, Viacheslav. "Vyacheslav Isaakovich Vershinin is 75 years old!". Omsk State University. Omsk State University. Retrieved 26 June 2021.

Other Comments[edit]

Of note, this article appears to be a simple direct translation from Russian wiki: ru:Вершинин, Вячеслав Исаакович. It seems to me like he is locally respected, and has some national recognition in Russia particularly due to his longevity in his field and teaching, it doesn't reach far enough to be noteworthy. Further, his research impact seems quite low and failed to reach an international stage. The fact that nearly all sources and information on this individual are in Russian makes it difficult to entirely verify, as well as create a wiki article with sources readers could easily verify for themselves.

These reasons, combined with not meeting the bar for WP:PROF leads me to believe this article should be deleted. If a russian-fluent individual can dispute my findings then this could be kept, but based on my own searching I don't think I am missing anything major that would warrant keeping the article.

Please share your thoughts, thanks.

Tautomers (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See Scopus Preview entry and this Google Scholar search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you, those results are in agreement with what I found and state in the argument section. I will be making use of Scopus in the future. Tautomers_{(T C)} 02:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a better Google Scholar search than the one above, but it still doesn't provide high enough citation counts to provide evidence of passing WP:PROF#C1, and we also have no evidence of other forms of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Russian article says he was named Honoured Professor at Omsk State University in 2013. That would seem to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC #5. Membership of the Scientific Council of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine may well also meet #3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, is there a reliable source for the Honoured Professor title? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is apparently a page for it on russian wiki: ru:Заслуженный профессор and it simply translate to emeritus in meaning from what I can tell. As such the title would not satisfy criteria 5. As for the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine he seems to only have membership, which wouldn't satisfy criteria 3. As such, he seems to still fail to meet all 8 criteria of WP:PROF. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 20:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of the academic inclusion criteria. Honored professor is not something that meets number 5. I am coming to think that even named chairs in some cases have become so ubiquitous that holding them making someone notable no longer really makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scopus gives him an h-index of 6 and only 143 citations, far from enough to meet C1, and he doesn't appear to meet any other NPROF or GNG criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My assessment of potential WP:NPROF C3 agrees with that of Tautomers. It doesn't sound like any WP:NPROF C5 holds. He did have birthday conferences in his honor, which usually suggests notability, but I don't see signs of NPROF C1 or C6 or similar notability to back that up (and the birthday conferences do not and should not in themselves suffices). No sign of WP:NPROF C1 or of non-NPROF criteria. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom.As it doesn't passed the general notability guidelines.(Fade258 (talk) 16:28, 1 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Timmins municipal election[edit]

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

Local-level mayoral election fails the WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE elements of WP:NEVENT. Has been in CAT:NN since 2015, so it's time to get a hearing on it, I guess. Hog Farm _Talk 19:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small city, nothing but results data. Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non notable city fails GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails WP:NEVENT. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENT....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as all votes were for Keep per WP:NACTOR also passed WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeita Chauhan[edit]

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

It fails GNG and has lack of reliable sources Preetykaur761 (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR, main roles in multiple significant films/tv series (Luv U Alia, Ek Shringaar-Swabhiman, and Sharp Shooter (film)) 15:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qualifies WP:NACTOR for playing main roles in movies and TV series. Jaysonsands (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarada Mitra[edit]

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

Non notable politician. Being the general secretary of the youth wing of Communist Party of India does not impart any notability. All the references cited in the article are WP:UGC and closely associated with the person. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL Jupitus Smart 18:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, article sourced to affiliated sources and nothing found in a before to support WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the national leader of the youth wing of what was then the largest opposition party in the 2nd most populous country in the world, Mitra would have been notable in his epoch. Note the following from Press Trust of India 1984 "CPI LEADER DIES -- Mr Sarada Mitra , member of the CPI National Council died at his residence in Prague on Sunday might , reports PTI" ([4], p. 80) --Soman (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the late 1950s, early 1960s, the CPI was getting 11 million votes nationally (around 10% of the vote) and this person at 22 was selected as leader of the youth wing of the party; asserting non-notability on the basis of being a youth leader is misleading, the question to be asked regarding notability is "youth leader of what?" In this case, at the time, youth leader of what was probably the second largest communist party in the non-communist world. Moreover, positions as Secretary of the WFDY and editor at World Marxist Review indicate significant status within the international Communist movement. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not a question of the things the article says, it's a question of the quality of the sourcing that the article uses to support the things it says — but the references here are entirely primary sources and/or blogs that are not support for notability, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in independent sources being shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Kiernan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Both positions this person has held are non-notable. KidAd • SPEAK 18:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that meets general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete government official below the level of actual notability and the coverage of Kiernan is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a WP:TOOSOON situation; no substantive coverage yet. For future reference, the only legitimate coverage I could find on Leslie Kiernan were two press releases from the White House and the Department of Commerce: [1], [2]. Suriname0 (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She has not held any political office that confers automatic notability under WP:NPOL, but the article is not getting her over WP:GNG on the sourcing — it's based entirely on primary source content self-published by Kiernan and her own employer, with no evidence of journalistic coverage about her in reliable sources independent of her. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 from mainspace/send to draft space for incubation. Discussion only three days old, but policy shows a clear position for this article not being in main space. The article, in its current position, should not be moved back to draft space. It may be improved and moved back in the future (preferably by a veteran editor who has thoroughly reviewed the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agshin Babaev[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMABIO. Doesn't have fights in top tier promotions, notable wins, notable accomplishments, and isn't ranked highly by fight matrix or sherdog. HeelPerfection (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails the MMA notability criteria since he has zero top tier fights and is not close to being ranked in the world top ten. I found no sources that support the claims of European, Asian, and world championships. Finally, I found no sources that provide the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Listings in databases and routine sports reporting do not show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note. Page was moved from mainspace to Draft:Agshin Babaev while the AfD was ongoing. —C.Fred (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 2018 California gubernatorial election. And will salt per request. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nickolas Wildstar[edit]

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate for political office. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and candidates qualify for articles only if they can be properly demonstrated as having had preexisting notability in another field of endeavour independently of running for office. The article is also not based on any evidence of reliable source coverage to establish his notability, either: two of the footnotes are his own self-published campaign video on YouTube, one is his campaign website, one is an endorsement on the self-published website of his own political party, and the one that looked on first glance like a real media outlet has a "This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own." disclaimer on top of it, which means it's a user-generated citizen journalism platform rather than notability-building media coverage. Furthermore, there's been editwarring here: this was first created as an article in August 2017, then redirected to the election he was running in at that time in September, then reverted back to a standalone article again in October, then redirected again in January 2018, at which point it stayed a redirect until the past 24 hours, upon which there's been an article-vs-redirect editwar today. Again, candidates do not get articles just for being candidates, and that goes especially for candidates who have to rely on their own self-published campaign literature to source an article with -- if he wins the election in November, then he'll qualify for an article, but he is not entitled to have one just for declaring himself a candidate.
I also wouldn't object to just restoring the redirect, but the edit history should still be deleted first so that there's no old content for anybody to attempt to revert-war over. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect per Bearcat. The subject dosen't presently meet the standards of WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rationale is air-tight, and worth noting the user who create the wiki is user:GovernorWildstar. Goddamn politicans. I have no opinion on the redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tautomers (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Meets neither GNG or NPOL. I would also recommend salting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I second the salting recommendation. Tautomers_{(T C)} 02:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to 2018 California Gubernatorial Election as a usual and appropriate outcome per WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Enos733 (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to 2018 California Gubernatorial Election as per above and WP:Poloutcomes. Jaysonsands (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redirect, and Salt Word-for-word description of WP:POLOUTCOMES. Page creator is obviously problematic as well. Salting would prevent overeager supporters.
Delete per WP:GNG, non-notable candidate. No issue with redirects as long as he's actually listed on the page we're redirecting to. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G7 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Bryant[edit]

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

Non-notable businesswoman. Fails WP:GNG. Founded a non-notable company. Claimed to be an actress, but none of the three (extensive) WP articles mentions her. Promotional, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she is said to have acted in 3 TV series, but as mentioned the articles do not mention here, she most likely had a one time role in 1 episode, and it is not even clear if it was enough to for her to be credirted. It is way below the level we would need for notability, and her business activities are not enough to demonstrate notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Tune[edit]

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

Sorry but this article is an advertisement. All the sources mentioned in the article have same text (slightly altered but line are very similar), all of sources are published at about the same time (in May & June). From the discussion we have here on bnwiki, we came to this conclusion that most likely Holy Tune itself provided the texts to the journalists/publishers/newspapers (self-promotion). Also most of the sources are primary, they directly quote from the owner of this record label (interview type, those aren't significant coverage). Fails WP:ORG, WP:GNG (We speedy deleted the article on bnwiki for above reason and others, see Afd there). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The article reads like an advertisement and sources cited fail to establish notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yeah this is basically an ad, and there seems to be little notability and wouldn't meet criteria for that. Tautomers (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Its look like an advertisement. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bringelly Road[edit]

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

The article makes no claim of notability and provides no sources. I don't see how it would be able to meet WP:NGEO. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 16:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 16:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably qualifies for a speedy too, maybe A7? SportingFlyer T·C 17:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. I submitted for A3 and A7. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 19:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, I forgot A7 is topic-restricted. SportingFlyer T·C 22:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GEO and despite the category it has been placed in, it's not even a highway. Deus et lex (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It exists, but that's about it. No indication of notability. The only coverage I can find is routine, e.g. construction news. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Offline Explorer[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. Only sources I can find are places to download it. ... discospinster _talk 14:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure, but this could be a redirect title or a disambiguation page. I've seen multiple different softwares called offline explorers! Govvy (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator, I could not find any reliable, significant coverage or indications of notability about this software. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 mayors of Whitehorse. Sandstein 06:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Curtis (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a small city mayor, not featuring sufficient substance or sourcing to get him over WP:NPOL #2. Although I'm actually the original creator here, I did so at a very different time in Wikipedia history -- once upon a time, mayors of "regionally significant" cities were automatically entitled to keep Wikipedia articles as soon as it was possible to verify that they existed as mayors, without regard to whether the article actually had any meaningful depth or sourcing. But that rule has since been tightened up, and the bar a mayor now has to clear is the ability to write and source a substantive article about his political impact as mayor: specific accomplishments, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But other than stating that he exists as a mayor, the content here is entirely unsuccessful runs for the territorial legislature and his appearance in a viral video that just makes him a WP:BLP1E -- nobody's ever been arsed to add any substantive content about his mayoralty to make this article useful or valuable, and about all I can find is glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of the failed legislature campaigns and the ribbon-cuttings at new public buildings, rather than anything that would meaningfully bolster his notability. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors of places with under 30,000 people need way better sourcing to justify keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Whitehorse: I agree with your statement regarding the past practice of automatically conferring notability to mayors of regional cities. Redirect is better in this case than outright delete, however. It would also be worth checking out the list of the other mayors of Whitehorse to see if any of those are non-notable as well. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Scott, Earl of Dalkeith[edit]

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

Not notable in his own right. He is a courtesy Earl but there is no certainty that he will become a Duke and we should cross that bridge when we come to it. For now he doesn't seem notable (other than for who his father is) and I don't believe he passes WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor nobility (even earls and dukes) are not automatically notable. They need to do something noteworthy. In this case he's not even an earl -- it's just a courtesy title. Athel cb (talk) 09:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a UK Who's Who entry https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U15084 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned elsewhere having a UK Who's Who entry is not one of WP's notability criteria. Some Who's Who articles for nobles and their heirs are literally just, date of birth, Father's name, Mother's name, end of article. Uhooep (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the Who's Who mentioned above can be considered a reliable source in some cases, which is not the case for the other Who's Who, just being mentioned in a reliable source does not give notability. The actual guidelines calls for multiple, mentions in reliable sources that are significant. The mention of this person in Who's Who does not really meet the significant coverage requirement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Mohan[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

There is only one notable role for the actor so far. Fails NACTOR. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dev Mohan is currently doing the role of Dushyanta in Shaakuntalam movie which is based on a popular Indian play Shakuntala by Kalidasa. So this character has its own importance. Moreover he is appearing in lead role in the Malayalam movie Pulli and also in a supporting role in the movie Malik, Fahad Fazil movie. Moreover he has a very good fan following from the single movie which is out ie. Sufiyum Sujatayum. He was ranked 9 as the most desirable men in Kerala by the Times of India Survey. These all shows his notability among people. His profile was accepted by IMDB seeing his importance. So I would request to keep his page rather than deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonal Mathew (talk • contribs)
- Just to be clear, "his profile was accepted by IMDB" is not evidence of notability. IMDb will include a listing for any person who had a credited job in any film or television show listed in the database. Obviously many people listed in IMDb are notable by Wikipedia standards, but there are also many people listed in IMDb who would not be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I know that, hence I gave it as the last point while expressing my views. The points mentioned above that are really important ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonal Mathew (talk • contribs)

~~Keep~~ He had Represented Kerala in Peter England Mr India 2016.He was selected in the final 16 contestants.^[1]^[2]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonal Mathew (talk • contribs)

Please only vote once and please sign your comments. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Dev Mohan selected as final 16 contestants in Peter England Mr. India 2016".
^ "Profile of Madhu Mohan, the finalist in 2016 Mr India".

Delete Having an IMDb profile is no where close to meeting our inclusion criteria. We have to stop acting like it is. IMDb is not even considered a reliable source at all. They have actually at times created what amounted to fake profiles on people who did not exist that were created as marketing gimicks for films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

- The reply to this was given earlier. The IMDB thing was just mentioned. The points given above that are the real points which I gave to support my views.

Delete - This actor will be popular tomorrow, no doubt about that; but as of now he is not notable. Moreover a draft article of him is also available. [5] Rajeshbieee (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The draft page of this article given above has many wrong informations. The person hasn't married. But the draft page says he has married. I just gave one example. The actor is already popular. Hence he got such a frand debut in Telugu Film industry. People need to get the right information about the artists who are growing up. They trusts sites like Wikipedia for it. So the pages like this need to be kept.

Delete/Draftify - per above, doesn't meet WP:ENT. Not much has changed from the last AfD, aside from the fact he's filming a couple new movies, i.e. it is still WP:TOOSOON for him to warrant an article. It may be worth draftifying for the future, when we see what happens with those films. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 06:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The last Afd didn't have the information that he was a former Mr. India competent. This information is not known to many. Looking from that point of view that he was a Mr. India competent, his notability has increased a lot. Many other informations like his work informations, his mother's and father's name, updation in filmography and biography was made in this page creation.

Delete - contrary to what the creator is saying, appearing in a beauty pageant is not a notability criterion. The situation has not changed. He fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG as before. If the creator has a problem with the information in the draft article, they can edit the draft article to show the correct info. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dev Mohan became a star in Malayalam Industry after his first movie itself. He is now doing the second schedule of Shakuntalam, Telugu movie in which he is playing the role of Dushyanta an epic character created by Kalidasa. Moreover his new movie, Maalik is going to be released on July 15th. I think that all these are enough to meet the notability of an actor. More than that he is a Mr. India 2016 competent. So keep this page..... — 2409:4073:319:18c9:de41:1491:80e8:db28 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:30, 4 July 2021‎ (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Dev Mohan became so famous after his debut film Sufiyum Sujatayum. He got much appreciation for doing the role of Sufi in that film. He was ranked 9th by the Kochi Times Most Desirable Men in 2020 just by his performance in the debut film Sufiyum Sujatayum. Now he is acting in the Telugu film, Shaakuntalam as the lead role. This is the best debut one can get in the Telugu Film Industry. He has completed acting in the film Maalik and it will be released very recently. He is currently the part of another Malayalam movie named Pulli. All these chances he got just because of his excellent performance in the debut film. So he seems to be notable actor. The dream of every model in India is to be a part of Mr. India competitions. Dev Mohan got a chance to participate in 2016 Peter England Mr. India competition. He was one among the 17 competitors. So he seems to be notable as a Malayali Model too because he is one among the very few models from Kerala who took part in Mr. India competition. So I request that this page should be kept and please don.t delete this page. — 117.230.82.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:45, 4 July 2021‎ (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the two keep votes above make any reference to any inclusion guideline nor do they have any relevance to any. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 5 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 14:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Dundas, Earl of Ronaldshay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable in his own right. He is a courtesy Earl but there is no certainty that he will become a Marquess and we should cross that bridge when we come to it. For now he doesn't seem notable (other than for who his father is) and I don't believe he passes WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as for the Earl of Dalkeith) Athel cb (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a UK Who's Who entry https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U33086 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned elsewhere having a UK Who's Who entry is not one of WP's notability criteria. Uhooep (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps I've misread Wikipedia Notability: Wikipedia:Notability (people) "The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary", which links to an article that mentions Who's Who Piecesofuk (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Piecesofuk, It says "The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)". [which is a reliable source], however goes on to say "entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not contribute toward notability" Uhooep (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - UK Who's Who doesn't accept self nominations: "But how do you get into the big red book, the latest edition of which is published this month? Although many have tried, you can't buy or bluff your onto the list. New entrants - of which there are about 1,000 a year - are invited to "join" after a lengthy vetting process, says a spokesman for the publishers, A&C Black." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1119959.stm Although it does say "If you are a peer, MP, QC, or high-ranking officer in the armed forces, you gain automatic entry. Ditto for those awarded a CBE or OBE." If Wikipedia majority doesn't want to include these sort of notable people, then fair enough Piecesofuk (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overall seems to lack significant notability other than as the heir to his father's title. I think at the moment he can easily be covered at Mark Dundas, 4th Marquess of Zetland. Dunarc (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the Who's Who mentioned above can be considered a reliable source in some cases, which is not the case for the other Who's Who, just being mentioned in a reliable source does not give notability. The actual guidelines calls for multiple, mentions in reliable sources that are significant. The mention of this person in Who's Who does not really meet the significant coverage requirement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Chichester, Earl of Belfast[edit]

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

Not notable in his own right. He is a courtesy Earl but there is no certainty that he will become a Marquess and we should cross that bridge when we come to it. For now he doesn't seem notable (other than for who his father is) and I don't believe he passes WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Being a hereditary title holder (or a trainee chartered accountant) doesn't confer notability. There are no sources to establish notability under any other NBIO criteria. (That we are relying entirely on a peerage entry, LinkedIn, and classified ads/engagement announcements (to establish even the basic facts) would seem to confirm that significant/independent biographical sources do not exist.) Guliolopez (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, lacks reliable news coverage to pass GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as for the Earl of Dalkeith Athel cb (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a UK Who's Who entry https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U10792 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned elsewhere having a UK Who's Who entry is not one of WP's notability criteria. In this case his Who's Who entry simply reads "Born 19 Nov. 1990; s and heir of Marquess of Donegall, qv ; m 2015, Oilbhe, d of late Charles Reid and of Dr Margaret Mary Cahill" Uhooep (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't add up to notability for me. Athel cb (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just because he has a title does not make him notable. Spleodrach (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Stanhope, Viscount Petersham[edit]

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

Not notable in his own right. He is a courtesy Viscount but there is no certainty that he will become an Earl and we should cross that bridge when we come to it. For now he doesn't seem notable (other than for who his father is) and I don't believe he passes WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as for the Earl of Dalkeith Athel cb (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a UK Who's Who entry https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U249833 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned elsewhere having a UK Who's Who entry is not one of WP's notability criteria. Uhooep (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the Who's Who mentioned above can be considered a reliable source in some cases, which is not the case for the other Who's Who, just being mentioned in a reliable source does not give notability. The actual guidelines calls for multiple, mentions in reliable sources that are significant. The mention of this person in Who's Who does not really meet the significant coverage requirement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Finch-Hatton, Viscount Maidstone[edit]

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

Not notable in his own right. He is a courtesy Viscount but there is no certainty that he will become an Earl and we should cross that bridge when we come to it. For now he doesn't seem notable (other than for who his father is) and I don't believe he passes WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see some coverage in The Courier-Mail but it does not strike me as in-depth coverage. Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as for the Earl of Dalkeith Athel cb (talk) 09:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a UK Who's Who entry https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U26330 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does it say about him? Surtsicna (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned elsewhere having a UK Who's Who entry is not one of WP's notability criteria. In this case his Who's Who entry simply reads "Born 21 June 1998; s and heir of Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham, qv" - end of entry. Uhooep (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't add up to notability for me Athel cb (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the Who's Who mentioned above can be considered a reliable source in some cases, which is not the case for the other Who's Who, just being mentioned in a reliable source does not give notability. The actual guidelines calls for multiple, mentions in reliable sources that are significant. The mention of this person in Who's Who does not really meet the significant coverage requirement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pattaravut Samutnavee[edit]

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

BLP of a Thai voice actor. Declined at AFC but moved to draft space, sourced only to YouTube, Muggle and a fan site. Complete lack of in-depth coverage in RIS. There may be other sources in Thai that I can’t find, but unless notability can be clearly shown it should be sent back to draft for further work as it is not ready for mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The two reliable sources that I found are a video interview by news website The Matter[6] and a 2004 interview from the the Animag magazine, reproduced in this Facebook page[7]. They don't contain much in-depth profile content that's presented in the authors' own voice (just examples of his previous work). There appears to be a small active fan community dedicated to Thai anime voice actors, but not much in-depth original material seems available online. The Thai Wikipedia cites an interview from a 2010 issue of Zenshu magazine. Given the range of coverage, it's plausible there may be more offline sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ahsanullah2015 (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shawny Williams[edit]

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

BLP of the police commissioner of Vallejo, CA. Apparently only locally notable. Does not pass WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage received in CNN and the LA Times. Also pretty significant coverage from local SFBay news sources. Passes WP:GNG easily. Mottezen (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has reliable sources, and is notable too.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. Jamil Khairi[edit]

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

Footballer with extremely brief career, only managing 7 mins of professional football, which provides a weak and technical passing of WP:NFOOTBALL. Ideally, WP:GNG should be met in such cases but I could find no significant coverage whatsoever in Google searches nor in an Indonesian source search. The best thing that I could find was a trivial mention in a youth football match report. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and previous comment, no GNG established JW 1961^Talk 21:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DXMJ-TV. ✗plicit 09:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DXMC-TV[edit]

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

As a relay station I don’t think this meets WP:BCAST and should be redirected to the main station, but redirects are reverted so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DXMJ-TV This is as cut and dry as they come, no matter what might be changing with BCAST. This should be a redirect. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DXMJ-TV. Fails WP:BCAST per nom as it's a relay station. SBKSPP (talk) 05:17, 3 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 DZEA-TV. ✗plicit 09:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DWLE-TV[edit]

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

As a relay station I don’t think this meets WP:BCAST and should be redirected to the main station, but redirects are reverted so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DZEA-TV This is as cut and dry as they come, no matter what might be changing with BCAST. This should be a redirect. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DZEA-TV. Fails WP:BCAST per nom as it's a relay station. SBKSPP (talk) 05:16, 3 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 DZEA-TV. ✗plicit 09:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DWBB-TV[edit]

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

As a relay station I don’t think this meets WP:BCAST and should be redirected to the main station, but redirects are reverted so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DZEA-TV This is as cut and dry as they come, no matter what might be changing with BCAST. This should be a redirect. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DZEA-TV. Fails WP:BCAST per nom as it's a relay station. SBKSPP (talk) 05:15, 3 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 08:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon School and Residential Treatment Center[edit]

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

I PRODded this without realizing that it had previously been prodded and recreated (in 2009). Anyway, the rationale still stands: "As a private school, has to meet WP:NORG. No reliable independent sources are provided, and I was unable to find any through WP:BEFORE. Minor local awards are not significant." Spicy (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator says, private schools (I have my questions as to if this place even counts as one) have to pass WP:NORG and this article clearly doesn't come anywhere close to meeting NORG. Receiving some awards definitely isn't enough to do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per G4. If the deprodder is claiming that this is ineligible for PROD because it is a recreation of a previously deleted article, then it should be G4'ed. If it was not an identical copy of the previously deleted article, then the rationale was invalid. In any event, this version has never met the GNG. Ravenswing 16:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: NORG applies to for-profit schools. This is a narrow category, in which most pre-university private schools in the West are not included (there are quite a few in developing East and Southeast Asian economies, though). No opinion here at the moment -- independent of the subject's notability, the article is risibly promotional for something in such a controversial cross-section of 'education'. Vaticidalprophet 13:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does. Nowhere in the article is it claimed that this is a non-profit. Ravenswing 20:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to their website they are "an approved private special education program." That's all I was able to find about it. I assume if they were a non-profit they would be a public organization. That said, from what I can tell they aren't really a school in the way the notability guidelines or Wikipedia more generally considers something a school anyway. Just having the word "school" in the name doesn't make it a school. Especially since they don't even call themselves a school. At least not from their webpage or in the material about them that I've read. So they should be treated exactly like every other organization regardless of where their funding comes from. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RTCs are...complicated. It's plausibly worth calling them schools; most don't pass GNG, unlike most schools, so treating them as such doesn't flood you with articles. Having articles like this on them is a terrible idea, though. I note that even our Residential treatment center article is pretty lame, and jarrs around almost randomly in its tone. Vaticidalprophet 03:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty curious, in what instance would it be plausibly worth calling treatment centers schools? I admit there's a thin line between an education establishment more generally and a school, but wouldn't they just be like normal treatment centers, which aren't considered colleges/universities, except that they children instead of adults? Also, Residential treatment center is probably pretty lame because Wikipedia is horrible at handling extremely general topics, because there's to much room for meandering and going on side tangents with topics that aren't extremely specific. As their impossible to summarize in a coherent, succinct manor. Let alone do the camping, revert everything editors on here usually let anyone try to write succinct articles. At least that's been my experience. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete because of the previous AFD. I also found nothing from a WP:BEFORE check, and I see no reason to believe that a treatment center with less than 100 students has enough independent secondary sources to merit an article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ithaka Darin Pappas[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. G11 on 4 March 2021. scope_creep^Talk 09:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2017-09 AkahtiLândia (closed as merge)

Logs: 2021-05 ✍️ create, 2021-03 ✗ G11

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Haley[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 00:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE. This is pretty much all I could find about her. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 17:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One local news source does not provide enough notability for an article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:00, 3 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 08:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

High Expectations (Concert)[edit]

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

Non-notable concert tour, sources only show that it took place, no significant coverage, hence fails WP:GNG / WP:NTOUR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I previously draftified an earlier, unsourced version of this (presumably same tour), which is now at Draft:High Expectations Tour (2020). If this AfD results in deletion, that one arguably can go as well. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, fails to meet noteworthy criteria. Also noteworthy, another concert on the artist's page was deleted two days ago, for the same reasons. Tautomers (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant in-depth coverage of this tour. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against renomination. czar 05:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EspoCRM[edit]

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

advertising or promotion Chief Minister (Talk) 02:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 02:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In Wikipedia, one can find few articles about open-source CRM software – e.g. Dolibarr, SuiteCRM, Group-Office and CiviCRM. Among the other worth-mentioning CRMs that are not featured are OroCRM, and vTiger.Harperpentusevich(talk) 02:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator seems to be blocked. Harperpentusevich (talk) 16:12, 2 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. czar 05:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum Culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This previously consensus-deleted article on a website has been recreated, sourced entirely to its own About section and a couple non-RS blogs (e.g. the waffle recipe blog wafflewindow.com). A WP:BEFORE on Google News fails to find anything more than fleeting references (e.g. mention of the site in a list of writer credits in bylines, etc.) and nothing that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The site purports to have several notable writers, however, notability is not inherited. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete.

Previous discussions: 2009-06 (closed as ✗ delete)

Related discussions: 2019-11 Funland (album) (closed as ✓ keep)

Logs: 2009-06 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed it is monosourced and seems a touch puffed and promotional. I wasn't able to find meaningful sources for it online with ease and seems unnoteworthy. It's questionable that it was undeleted and not improved at all, probably because it can't be. Tautomers (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mz Orstin[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ and Video Jockey. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, even though passes #8 and #9 of WP:MUSICBIO, I couldn’t find any in-depth reliable sources that discuss about the subject, a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Xclusivzik (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per #8 and #9 of WP:MUSICBIO. Ultimately we need to consider Western bias when we evaluate articles from other parts of the world. While some of the sources lack independence or have reliability issues and should be removed; there are a few sources which are in depth and are of quality. The award nomination puts it on the keep side for me.4meter4 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no indication that the award has international recognition and condidering the number of categories that it has, gives me less confidence that it is actually worth anything. Almost every biographical article now has an awards section now, with the presumption of an explosion in the number of awards that are available. Every facet of existance has some kind award associated with it. It is just the way of folk, trying to keep the article in Wikipedia. The award is non-notable. And there is no indication she has international recognition. scope_creep^Talk 14:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator on the Ghana DJ Awards, which appears to be yet another vehicle for advertising. I can find no in-depth coverage of any of their ceremonies or the apparent prestige given to the winners, and lists of winners are merely repeated at unreliable websites. As for Mz Orstin, it may appear that she received recognition as a rare woman DJ in her country, but once again that coverage is in the form of repeats of her own management's PR releases (e.g. [8]). The same pattern is seen in announcements of her record releases. Otherwise she seems to be making an honest living as a DJ at clubs and restaurants but she does not have enough reliable and significant media coverage for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CREO[edit]

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

Blatant advertisement of a non notable Indian technology company. Unable to find any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content GermanKity (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yeah this is basically an ad, and the creator of the page only ever made this and never edited again and claimed it to be a "notable company". Tautomers (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a start-up. The article describes the start-up's product proposition, supported by product reviews; a flurry of announcement-based coverage when they were taken over in August 2017 (e.g. Hike Messenger acquires Bengaluru-based technology startup Creo) but I am not seeing the coverage about the company needed to demonstrate that notability was attained. There is a brief mention of the acquisition of this company at Hike_Messenger#History, which article might serve as a redirect target. AllyD (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Hindu article has some merit but nothing apart from that. Fails WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSK #1: nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fitna[edit]

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

I moved various partial matches to See also, which leaves two legitimate entries. One is the obvious primary topic, so that should be moved here, and a hatnote added for the short. Note that all but two of the entries I demoted are discussed in the main article, and one of the exceptions is listed in that article's See also. (For some reason, the Fifth Fitna isn't mentioned there, but could be.) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus on primary topic at Talk:Fitna (word)#Requested move; a new move request would be necessary. Peter James (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the entries that were recently moved to the "see also" are partial title matches: as far as I can see, each of those individual fitnas can be referred to, in the right context, as the Fitna, so they would need to be included in the dab's main body. Also, there's no primary topic with respect to usage: the clickstream data for March shows that the article about the word did not receive a majority of clicks from the dab page: it got 115, with the First Fitna getting 109, the Fifth Fitna - 43, the film – 42, the Fitna of Andalus – 39, and the 3rd, 2nd and 4th fitnas – 32, 26, and 21 respectively. – Uanfala (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ambiguous term, several possibilities. Boleyn (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination (though I disagree about the ~~five~~ six fitnas being promoted). There's a third entry now. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pateros#Secondary public schools. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Simplicio Manalo National High School[edit]

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

Non-notable school, virtually unsourced and a search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings and social media accounts. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Pateros#Secondary_public_schools. As this clearly isn't notable on it's own, but a redirect to the school section of place that it's located in per ATD is perfectly fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pateros#Secondary public schools per Adamant1 – there's no coverage sufficient to pass the GNG, but a redirect would be a reasonable and harmless alternative to deletion. See WP:CHEAP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I guess public schools are worthy of having redirects at the very least. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pateros#Secondary public schools: Just like other Philippine school articles existing here, it is non-notable per WP:NSCHOOL. HiwilmsTalk 19:59, 1 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 Aberdeen, Mississippi#History as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Aberdeen[edit]

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

I'm in the process of developing a goal of trying to destub ACW battle stubs. When looking at this one to try to source it, I'm coming to the conclusion that this may well not be notable. The two ELs present in the article are an old book source that just states that a skirmish occurred at Aberdeen, Arkansas on July 9, 1862 and that components of several Indiana units partook in it. The other El is to an Encyclopedia of Arkansas article about the Skirmish at Grand Prairie on July 6 and doesn't mention an action at Aberdeen on July 9. Encyclo. of Ark. lists Grand Prairie as part of the Pea Ridge campaign, but Shea & Hess's book about the Pea Ridge campaign, which is one of the key modern works about the campaign, doesn't have anything in the index for "Aberdeen".

Ed Bearss's article about the White River Expedition, which seems to be the most connected campaign to this fight, mentions Aberdeen in connection with the Grand Prairie fight on July 6, but not an action there on July 9. It's also worth noting that the commanders in the article are wholly unsourced, as the one external link actually mention this battle does not name officers. There were 1862 and 1864 skirmishes at Grand Prairie, and one or both may be notable (finding some encouraging signs there), but all I'm finding for this one are a handful of passing mentions, some references to the various articles listed at Battle of Aberdeen, and some passing mentions to the Skirmish at Aberdeen, Mississippi.

I sincerely hope someone can save this, but I can find no evidence of the sort of coverage that would permit that. Hog Farm _Talk 05:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that it's merely a skirmish is a bad start. Unconvinced that there is sufficient sources out there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hog Farms's commendable work in checking sources. Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect: Even the nominator hesitates to offer this sort of article up for deletion, as demonstrated by their reasonable WP:BEFORE. It appears this is a verifiable event, but insufficiently covered by RS at this time. No objection to resurrection if better sourcing is applied. BusterD (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change to redirect. Since the Aberdeen, Mississippi#History seems to have a home for this material, it can best incubate there. BusterD (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As there is a suitable target at Aberdeen, Mississippi History.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:08, 3 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 09:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anju Sharma[edit]

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

Promotional and non neutral article on a non notable psychiatrist. References cited contains non independent content and passing mentions, and a web search finds mostly sponsored sources. Fails WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are basically interviews and hence not independent. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DJRSD (talk) 08:55, 2 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) Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catrinel Dumitrescu[edit]

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

The subject might be notable but no references to justify notability. do not show significant coverage. fails GNG. GermanKity (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I added more info and references that should clearly establish the notability of this actress. The article could be further expanded, but I hope those additions should be enough to avoid deletion. Turgidson (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG - initial WP:BEFORE suggests clear indications of notabiity, e.g. catrinel dumitrescu: 14 articole (a1.ro), Catrinel Dumitrescu: „Îmi pare rău că nu m-am bucurat mai mult atunci când îi aveam pe toți cei dragi lângă mine” (evz.ro, 2019). Beccaynr (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leeza Mangaldas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Advertisement, self promotion. Vanity publications. References do not show the notability of the subject. fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR GermanKity (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree fails WP:GNG and reads as a vanity/fan page. Not noteworthy enough. Tautomers (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from 2015 to now 2021, Leeza Mangaldas has done a lot of work. She has become sex-positive content creator and anchor also. In 2020, Leeza featured in POPxo Power Women List. She was also in the list of GQ's 25 Most Influential Young Indians 2020-21.Leeza Mangaldas started her career as a model and was Femina Miss India South 2012 finalist.Leeza started her YouTube channel in 2017 to add science to sex. Leeza was also an anchor in Indian Super League. Multiple third-party reliable sources have been added.--Anjliishtwal (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of voting to keep, you should probably just give a response if you disagree with an editor. Seems a bit biased when you vote for your own article. Jcmcc (Talk) 07:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. This is a discussion, not a vote, and article contributors are encouraged to contribute to the discussion like everyone else. pburka (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete Fails WP:GNG. Fan page at best. The quality secondary sources prove her existence as a human and show shes working towards good things, but don't elaborate on her accomplishments or notability. She may in fact have had notable work, but its not reflected in the article and I couldn't find anything with a cursory search. Soft delete as I am not certain of whether or not beauty pageants count as notability. Jcmcc (Talk) 07:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does read like a vanity piece/promo of an individual of little to no actual notability. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC, e.g. We pathologise our healthy bodies and desires, says online sex educator Leeza Mangaldas (The Week, 2021) "[...] Mangaldas, 30, who is one of the most popular sex educators on the internet right now. After she switched to making Hindi videos during the pandemic, her followers have grown multifold," Innovators, entertainers, disruptors, game changers: Meet GQ's Most Influential Young Indians (GQ India, 2021), HT Brunch Social Media Star of The Week: Leeza Mangaldas (Hindustan Times, 2021, "For busting myths about first time sex, the hymen and the idea of ‘virginity’ via her Reels video on Instagram"). The article can be revised to better emphasize her notability, based on multiple independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC) See also: India on Trial (ABC.au, 2013), In Her Honour (Indian Express, 2014). Beccaynr (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that all of the links you provided in fact fail WP:BASIC. The first few ones that mention her do not provide 'significant coverage' they only mention her on the side while they go into depth on a topic that she happened to be involved in. The links at the end that you provided are all primary sources which 'do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject' according to WP:BASIC. Jcmcc (Talk) 07:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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, and the first three sources are not trivial mentions; per WP:BIO, the sources find her "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". The last two sources also include WP:SECONDARY commentary and context, e.g. ABC.au, in addition to the quote from Mangaldas, "reporter Zoe Daniel meets many of the people who hope it will and who are doing their own bit to elevate the plight of women in India," and e.g. The Indian Express, noting the context of her advocacy in addition to her work as an actress:

In Her Honour, Indian Express, 2014, excerpt

In the course of researching for the film, Chopra and Malik spoke to several rape victims and their families. “It was difficult because these young women somehow felt ashamed of themselves. It’s what made me ask: Why should a woman feel ashamed of something that is not her fault?” says the director.

The question was, in fact, also addressed by one of the film’s leading ladies, Mangaldas, in an opinion piece she wrote for a news portal in 2013. “Unfortunately, in India rape is inextricably linked by men— and women — to shame: the ultimate desecration. Many victims are murdered by their rapists or choose to commit suicide. It is also not uncommon for the parents of rape victims to kill themselves. Thus, most victims don’t speak up about what happened to them, lest their families be ostracised, lest they never find a husband or be shunned by their friends,” she wrote in the piece.

And these are only examples of sources that help establish her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails wp:GNG, and sounds a bit promo. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I've Done.)} 02:35, 1 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cocos (Keeling) Islands Soccer Association[edit]

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

Same reason as presented for the deletion of Christmas Island's page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas Island Soccer Association

"This article contains no reliable sources and fails WP:GNG (there are no specific notability criteria for sports organizations)."

A search into the entity also turns up nothing, with almost all of the mentions appearing to be transcluded from this page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous AFD discussion. These islands have a total of c.600 people, so unsurprising that their soccer association isn't notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not meet GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why does this page still exist? BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 23:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a puffed-up bag of nothing. Geschichte (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vilagran & Delavy[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Lack of reliable references that are independent from the subject. Do not satisfy WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. No notability whatsoever. It seems a case of WP:PROMO to me. Only three sources. Two self produced, and the other is a link to the artist profile on Amazon Music. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 03:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient reliable, third-party sources. A Google didn't return anything relevant, anyway. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 00:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temístocles López[edit]

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

Non-notable actor and director.

The article has been flagged for sourcing issues since 2009, and continues to lack independent sources on the individual; the only independent sources provided are for a work of his, Chain of Desire, and while they are likely sufficient to make the work notable, notability is not inherited.

A search for additional sources only turns up promotional material and passing mentions; nothing sufficient to pass WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, or WP:FILMMAKER. BilledMammal (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwar Pal Mahour[edit]

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

No indication of notability. fails WP:GNG Johnson Wagart (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Johnson Wagart (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Johnson Wagart (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seemingly no sources talking about the subject and likely autobiography or created by someone close to the subject. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 03:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly there are issues, delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - Does not satisfy general notability or biographical notability, and is an autobiography that reads like a resume. Author is making repeated tendentious demands at AFC Help Desk to accept a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Black Bufflo[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Within the references, all the mentions to them are trivial, typically mentioning their real name once in a listing of the members of the band being reviewed, or once when mentioning the composer for a movies score.

There is one reference that goes into a little more depth on Ash Black Bufflo/Jay Clarke, but even that reference is focused on an album they released, with the mentions of the musician being in passing - and it is a blog.

The references do support the band Dolorean being notable, but notability is not inherited, so they are not transferred to the individual.

A search for references outside the article turn up nothing, though searching the individual under their real name is made more difficult by the existence of the much more notable tennis player Jay Clarke. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Tomwsulcer and Walter have proven to my satisfaction that this ABB meets GNG, though only barely. BilledMammal (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An AllMusic biography, https://www.allmusic.com/artist/ash-black-bufflo-mn0002568313/biography and their sole album reviewed there https://www.allmusic.com/album/andasol-mw0002136073. Additional reviews https://alarm-magazine.com/2011/morrow-vs-hajduch-ash-black-bufflos-andasol/, https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17494-album-review-ash-black-bufflo.html, an interview https://www.verbicidemagazine.com/2011/08/10/interview-ash-black-bufflo/, https://www.pdxmonthly.com/arts-and-culture/2011/07/ash-black-buffalo-july-2011 That feels like enough from a quick Google search. I'm sure that a more focused search on music sites will reveal more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Good finds with the interviews; they didn't appear in my results - although are interviews considered independent for the purpose of WP:GNG? I think the allmusic biography is too brief to count as significant coverage, and the album reviews apply to the question of whether the album is notable, not the musician. BilledMammal (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable indie musician, with independent reviews as per above. He did the music for that weird film about a traumatized man who invented a toy village called Marwencol. He's married to a fellow musician and they get some coverage in Paste magazine. Also some coverage here and here. Overall, meets the general notability guideline, barely.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure any of those contribute to notability; the Paste magazine article only includes a passing reference to him, while the others are all reviews of works he did/contributed to, and don't contribute to his notability. BilledMammal (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources conferring notability include this one and here and here and here. Plus there are two paragraphs about him (Jay Clarke) here so overall he passes the GNG, but like I said, just barely, so your AfD challenge is not unreasonable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Favonian (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Cevallos[edit]

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

Not noticeable enough. Google News returns no result. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 02:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete google does return some results and it is relatively to verify this individual is what the article claims. However, it it seems to fail WP:GNG, he just doesn't seem significant. Also, I watch MSNBC and don't recall seeing him- though this bit is anecdotal. Also, the creator of the page user:editor459 seems to be a one trick pony of sorts. Tautomers (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack enough indepth sources that are indepdent and reliable and truly about Cevallos to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: just another talking head. Tautomers, I've seen him on TV, and he made sense to me, but that's by-the-by. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies. Had a look for sources but they were all just mentions of pieces written by him, not about him. If we had List of MSNBC reporters, I could entertain a redirect, but we don't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not notable.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable enough to justify an article. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T Delete Is this for real? Cevallos is a national media figure. Removing his page would be absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5c2:300:62e:1802:1de0:663a:28f5 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC) — 2601:5c2:300:62e:1802:1de0:663a:28f5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails GNG BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:38, 2 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 01:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TerminalFour[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Has been PROD'ed several times (most recently by Skyerise) and so likely needs formal AfD to confirm consensus. To my eye, there is no indication that this small (<100 person?) company meets WP:GNG or WP:NORG. In terms of the content, it is overtly promotional, reliant almost entirely on subject's PR materials/website, reads as an extension of that website, and largely expanded by apparent COI/SPA users. In terms of the applicable WP:NCORP criteria, a WP:BEFORE news search returns largely passing mentions and the same routine coverage (funding efforts/etc) we might expect for any other similarly sized/positioned company. Any sources that do exist (and certainly those linked from the article) do not appear to be independent of the subject (being the subject's own website, marketing materials, direct/republished press releases, a website seemingly dedicated to news about CMS companies/products, and some apparent churnalism from a few otherwise "general" news sources). If there are sources to establish notability, I'm not seeing them. This article has been deleted and restored/refurded several times (without community consensus via AfD), so it would be good to confirm consensus one-way-or-the-other and once-and-for-all. Guliolopez (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable company. Spleodrach (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The rationale in the 2015 PROD was "Searches and examinations of both this and what I found have nothing actually substantial, all sources are either PR or trivial mentions which is exactly what's listed here too." which appears applicable despite its WP:REFUND revival in 2016. As Guliolopez said above, the article and available coverage are typical for a firm of its scale; a 2019 Business Post interview with the founder indicates the firm has fewer than 100 employees and total funding around €2.25M.A firm going about its business, but I am not seeing the depth of coverage which would be needed to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 15:59, 1 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 01:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey E. Dick[edit]

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

Does not appear to me WP:PROF guidelines, and is an early-career assistant professor. For each of the points below:

Arguments for Deletion[edit]

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

No. According to google scholar, he has an h-index of 22. His most cited first-author paper has 118 citations. This is quite good for someone his age. However, nearly all of this has accumulated from when he was a graduate student, and is not applicable to his track as a professor. It's likely he'll get tenure and be successful based off these measures. However, this has not yet come to pass, and is not a guarantee either.

2.The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

No. He's won awards, but none at a high level.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

No. This has not occurred, and would be extremely unlikely for an assistant professor.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

No. As a graduate student he might have (and an analytical chemist may be able to qualify this), but as a professor this has not happened. He is much too early in his career.

5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

No.. He is an untenured assistant professor.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

No. Much to early in his career to have achieved this, and has not.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

No. This has not occurred, or was I able to find evidence of this.

8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

No. This has not happened nor is there evidence of this. It would be highly unusual for an assistant professor to be in such a position of authority.

Other comments[edit]

It seems like the article was created by a well-meaning student user:Lrandolph 19. The article is overall well written, but is a bit résumé-like and looks more like a splash page that you'd encounter on a research group website, and is ultimately not entirely at wikipedia standard. Though, quite a lot of professor pages are like this so it is not out of the ordinary.

Jeffrey will likely have a good career, but it is still too early for him to be noteworthy enough to have a wikipage. I would imagine it would be exceptionally rare for there to be an article for an assistant professor unless they had won a major international award or were exceptionally noteworthy outside of that. Prof. Dick does not appear to be this case. Maybe in another 5-10 years after he's gotten tenure and has made a major impact on science and society a page would be meaningful.

Please share your thoughts, thanks.

Tautomers (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, delete. He looks like a jolly good person doing good work, and if his career continues as it has started, he stands a good chance of eventually satisfying WPs notability for profs, at least by landing himself a named/distinguished chair. But it's far wp:Too soon. At the moment he's only just made it beyond post-doc, and while getting a good research fellowship isn't an achievement to be sniffed at, it's not a major prize; it's basically a career-step that tens of thousands do every year. Elemimele (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. Non-notable early career scientist. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His track record is very strong for somewhat at his career stage, but still well below the average in his field and only slightly above the median according to Scopus citation metrics:

Total citations: avg: 6637, med: 1214, Dick: 1303.

Total papers: avg: 123, med: 44, D: 53.

h-index: avg: 29, med: 18, D: 20.

Top citations: 1st: avg: 517, med: 230, D: 129. 2nd: avg: 341, med: 132, D: 102. 3rd: avg: 254, med: 95, D: 90. 4th: avg: 193, med: 86, D: 83. 5th: avg: 168, med: 80, D: 78.

Top first-author: avg: 382, med: 108, D: 102.

JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete. probably WP:TOOSOON right now but very likely we will write an article in 5-10 years. --hroest 01:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable just yet based on academic output Uhooep (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Cutts[edit]

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

Non notable musician, fails WP:BIO. A BEFORE doesn’t provide much. WP:TOOSOON maybe? Xclusivzik (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-06 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom . AGAIN the article look as self promotional , No evidence of Notability , it fail WP:MUSICBIO Samat lib (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability. FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:02, 5 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may re-nominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 01:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Rawail[edit]

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

it fails WP:GNG and has lack of reliable sources and also fails WP:NACTOR Preetykaur761 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FYI - the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - [9] Ravensfire (talk) 14:47, 1 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) 06:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Shukla[edit]

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

it fails WP:GNG and has lack of reliable sources and also fails WP:NACTOR Preetykaur761 (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FYI - the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - [10] Ravensfire (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic remains non-notable irrespective. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:42, 2 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may re-nominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 01:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Bhatt[edit]

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

it fails WP:GNG and has lack of reliable sources and also fails WP:NACTOR, even though he is the son of Mahesh Bhatt he lacks notablity tag Preetykaur761 (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may re-nominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 01:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Chaudhary[edit]

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

it fails WP:GNG and has lack of reliable sources and also fails WP:NACTOR Preetykaur761 (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May fail WP:NACTOR or not, but I believe he meets WP:GNG simply because there is a lot of media coverage that – for whatever reason – is not in the article atm. It seems to mostly affect his personal life, but well it's a sort of fame I guess. Just from a quick search, some examples: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] --LordPeterII (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FYI - the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - [17] Ravensfire (talk) 14:47, 1 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may re-nominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 01:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Kaushik[edit]

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

it fails WP:GNG and has lack of reliable sources and also fails WP:NACTOR Preetykaur761 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Danko Jones#2009: B-Sides. (non-admin closure) Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Danko Jones[edit]

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

Non-notable poorly sourced article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NMUSIC, I could find no reviews of this album. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should try searching "This is Danko Jones" review. This comes up, albeit short. And after that it's a dead end for me as well :) Geschichte (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, guess I didn't go deep enough into google. Nevertheless, that doesn't change the equation, that source is really not even enough to be considered SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Danko Jones#2009: B-Sides as a clear alternative to deletion. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. czar 05:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danko Jones#2009: B-Sides. Aside from an Exclaim review presented above, there's not enough sources to meet WP:NALBUM. SBKSPP (talk) 05:34, 3 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.

[ResearchGate-1] Vershinin, Viacheslav. "Viacheslav Vershinin". ResearchGate. ResearchGate. Retrieved 26 June 2021.

[Publons-2] Vershinin, Viacheslav. "Viacheslav I. Vershinin". Publons. Publons. Retrieved 26 June 2021.

[Omsk_State-3] Vershinin, Viacheslav. "Vyacheslav Isaakovich Vershinin is 75 years old!". Omsk State University. Omsk State University. Retrieved 26 June 2021.

[4] "Dev Mohan selected as final 16 contestants in Peter England Mr. India 2016".

[5] "Profile of Madhu Mohan, the finalist in 2016 Mr India".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]