Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 09	March 11 >

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 redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Kidd (cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep - He's played first-class cricket so he's automatically notable. Needs more sources though. – Pee Jay 16:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The cricket SNG criterion is "highest domestic level" – regardless of the status afforded individual matches, university cricket (especially at this time) falls below this standard. As such, this fails NCRIC and he does not get the weak presumption (not guarantee) of notability offered by it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he has played first class cricket, which is the key element in WP:CRIN along with List A matches. Note that WP:GNG is erroneously referred to above by Rondolinda; GNG is not being relied on for the importance of this article. There are many matches played at first class level which are not county championship, but which are included in first class players' statistics, and which qualify for notability. To take Wjemather's point, a correct reading of WP:CRIN is that all first class and List players are automatically notable, and some players who have not played first class cricket may also be notable if they played in matches before 1947, as those 'important matches' may not have been designated as first class. Note that WP:CRIN states definitively that a first class match is an important match. DevaCat1 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players Has played 2 FC matches, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played in first-class matches so meets the notability criteria. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players. No WP:SIGCOV; only wide-ranging databases, scorecards, etc. In fact fails all notability criteria including the very weak NCRIC; per my above comment, there is no automatic first-class—highest-level equivalence here. It should be noted that such matches no longer have first-class status as a result of this long-standing paradox. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting the GNG which is the standard all articles must meet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In his cricket career, he played only two first class matches as a bowler, he picked only one wicket and his bowling average was 154 which is not good. Non-notable bowler. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Going to go out on a limb to relist here and encourage those addressing cricket-specific notability guidelines to address whether he meets the broader standard—to which subject area-specific thresholds are subordinate—set out in WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 00:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only coverage of him that's not a directory entry is a single sentence in a match report. Definitively fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. No in-depth coverage. There aren't sufficient source to write a biography, nor will there ever be. WP:WHYN explains we require significant coverage "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page..." ----Pontificalibus 16:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players. No objections to this. StickyWicket (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Taylor (cricketer, born 1999)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's played first-class cricket, so he's automatically notable. I've added a source that mentions his performance in one of those matches. – Pee Jay 16:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The cricket SNG criterion is "highest domestic level" – regardless of the status afforded individual matches, university cricket (especially at this time) falls below this standard. As such, this fails NCRIC and he does not get the weak presumption (not guarantee) of notability offered by it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he has played first class cricket, which is the key element in WP:CRIN along with List A matches. There are many matches played at first class level which are not county championship, but which are included in first class players' statistics, and which qualify for notability. To take Wjemather's point, a correct reading of WP:CRIN is that all first class and List players are automatically notable, and some players who have not played first class cricket may also be notable if they played in matches before 1947, as those 'important matches' may not have been designated as first class. Note that WP:CRIN states definitively that a first class match is an important match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevaCat1 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players Has played 2 FC matches, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where players with 1 or a few matches but no coverage, are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rugbyfan22 - he clearly fails WP:GNG, which makes sports SNGs moot - basically just referenced to Cricket Archive. SportingFlyer T·C 01:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played in first-class matches so meets the notability criteria. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players. No WP:SIGCOV; only wide-ranging databases, scorecards, etc. In fact fails all notability criteria including the very weak NCRIC; per my above comment, there is no automatic first-class—highest-level equivalence here. It should be noted that such matches no longer have first-class status as a result of this long-standing paradox. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting the GNG which is the standard all articles must meet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This player played only two first class matches and most important thing, his age only 21. He can definitely play more matches in future but in current scenario, he is non-notable player. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable as he's played first class cricket AlexdeGrey (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played two first-class matches so meets CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually fails CRIN which states clearly: "N.B. Judge notability by reference to a substantial secondary source that makes clear it is discussing a senior player... in historical rather than statistical terms". Scorecards plainly do not meet this requirement. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Blah, blah, blah. You and the Belgian (in cohorts with that charming JPL character) pick and choose what is and isn't notable, so won't be taking lectures from you. StickyWicket (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too many within the cricket project have invented/sustained false-equivalences and selectively ignored the most pertinent sections of guidelines (project essay, in this case) in order to pursue their goal of creating an article for every recorded cricketer. In the past, team-!voting (mostly hand-waving at NCRIC) has often proved successful in retaining such articles at AFD, almost always without providing any evidence of significant coverage, but thankfully that seems to no longer be the case. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Going to go out on a limb to relist here and encourage those addressing cricket-specific notability guidelines to address whether he meets the broader standard—to which subject area-specific thresholds are subordinate—set out in WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 00:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the relist, WP:GNG's more important than any individual sports notability guideline, and literally the only sources in the article are to database/archival websites. Unless someone can actually provide significant coverage of him, this can't be kept just because a database website says he played a couple of matches. SportingFlyer T·C 00:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor has competed at the highest domestic level. Additional references have been added to the article AlexdeGrey (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What we have in this article is a textbook WP:REFBOMB. The non-database sources are nothing more than passing mentions in routine local match reports, squad lists and scorecards. Has still not played at the highest level. There is still no significant coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is a way to win here on the basis of comments like- when there are no external citations, that's bad; when there are citations, that is bad as well. Cricketers don't only become notable when there is a Wisden obituary to work from. This is why guidelines like WP:NCRIC exist, even though they are widely ignored in AfD discussions such as the current one. DevaCat1 (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about winning/losing. Guidelines such as NCRIC are an indicator, not a guarantee, of worthiness for a standalone article. Articles such as this, that barely (or arguably don't) meet that low bar, require WP:SIGCOV; as yet, none has been found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The criticism before was lack of references, now it's effectively cite overkill. If competing in first-class cricket doesn't confer notability, then I think the guidelines need to make that clear, otherwise wikipedia contributors are contributing their time for nothing AlexdeGrey (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The definition of First-class cricket should also be changed on wikipedia if the article is to be deleted AlexdeGrey (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no way to dress up that what sourcing there is is no better then a bunch of passing mentions in match reports and falls way below the standard of GNG level sourcing. That this is best that can be found clearly shows that NCRIC falls below the inclusion standards set by the community. The obvious solution is to create list articles but the wikiproject refuses to play ball so delete is the only policy based outcome here, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cricket) QUOTE A cricket figure is presumed notable if they have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level UNQUOTE. At a domestic level, it is a fact that Taylor has competed in two first-class cricket matches AlexdeGrey (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now better and more comprehensively sourced than previously following amendments, so there is a better indication of the notability of the subject, in addition to the WP:NCRIC pass; the case for retaining as a wikipedia article appears to have been significantly strengthened. DevaCat1 (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is still no significant coverage; the sources in the article are scorecards, profiles and statistics from wide-ranging databases, and passing mentions in local cricket reports – none of which contributes to establishing notability. The first-class matches he played were also not the "highest domestic level" (they were effectively pre-season friendlies for the counties, in the dying days of such matches being accorded status), so claims of a trivial pass of NCRIC are extremely weak. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. First-class cricket is by definition the highest domestic level; no distinction is made beyond that, which would be like saying that runs against Zimbabwe aren't "real" test runs because Zimbabwe are considerably weaker than Australia or a degree from Oxford is more of a degree than one from Oxford Brookes. A first-class game is a first-class game. You may not like that, but it is factually true. The games were sufficiently significant to receive coverage on the BBC Sport website; this is not a niche or specialist website, but one which covers only the highest domestic level of sports. And there is nothing in WP:GNG to say that local newspapers are not relevant for the purposes of establishing notability, so I am unclear as to what point you are making by handwaving at that point. DevaCat1 (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of first-class cricket is mostly based on the format of the game and left for local authorities to accord status to teams as they see fit – standard has never been a criterion. As such, status has continued to be accorded for historical, traditional or development reasons (the latter in the case of the MCC universities programme). To claim that these non-competitive university matches in which county 1st XI (and 2nd XI) players did little more than get loose and pad their averages is the same standard as the County Championship simply does not correlate with reality. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor competed against Hampshire County Cricket Club and Middlesex County Cricket Club, both of which are first-class cricket clubs. Taylor played for a first-class cricket club and has competed at the highest domestic level which confers notability, unless the guidelines are wrong in which case the guidelines should be changed to save the person who wrote this article, and future contributors, wasting their time AlexdeGrey (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus to keep the article. There is also a consensus that the article needs some cleanup (especially regarding its references), which can be worked out in the article and its talk page. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NOTDIR. Majority of items sourced by one source which appears to be a blog site, lacks significant secondary coverage and reliable sources. The two MTA sources only specify mandated widths on vehicles. Nightfury 14:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't see a substantial question as to whether this is verifiable regardless of the current state of links on the page. The MTA's infrastructure, as with any comparably large and notable transit agency, is a relevant part of our coverage. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total fancruft mostly sourced by self published sources. Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but reduce information that isn't easily cited or can't be cited at all. Mtattrain (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is still relevant to MTA Buses, the article just needs more citations. BWCNY (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- BWCNY, Relevance is not a suitable reason to keep the article. Can you find more sources for the article? Nightfury 08:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, Very relevant fleet page, also TTMG is not a blog, and as far as I know, no one who is a frequent editor to this article is also a TTMG editor (I know I am not) Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 03:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a glance, TTMG appears to be a self published fansite. Ajf773 (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MTATransitFan, see WP:UGC; may I ask you to reconsider your vote. Nightfury 08:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightfury:, still think it is very notable. What does UGC have to do with any of this? Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 22:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MTATransitFan: The roster parts of TTMG and the CPTDB wiki are both wikis, which are user-generated content, which seem to not be acceptable sources but are heavily used on the page regardless. Mtattrain (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, lots of information (quantities, stuff cited by CPTDB and TTMG fan sites) can be removed while retaining the article. Mtattrain (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then there would less content than in MTA Regional Bus Operations#Fleet, and fewer sources. Peter James (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable topic, given the size of the agency. It's not a question of the sourcing - the sources are bad right now, but they can be improved. Unlike the retired fleet articles, which are not notable as standalone topics, an article about the bus fleet in the United States' largest city is definitely notable. There are definitely sources on current aspects of the fleet, such as how the MTA plans for the fleet to be all electric by 2040 even though only 0.5% of the fleet's 5,800 buses are currently electric. There's also info on historical aspects, such as how nearly a thousand buses had to be scrapped in the 1980s, or how the MTA was the first large U.S. transit agency with an accessible bus fleet. For this it passes WP:GNG. Now, considering WP:NOTDIR, it is possible to expand the article with information that is directly relevant to the history and status of the fleet, while cutting out trivia-like portions of the article. I haven't performed an extensive search into sources, but there exist sufficient sources that the topic of the MTA Bus fleet meets WP:GNG. Epicgenius (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That topic is at MTA Regional Bus Operations#Fleet. Peter James (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The topic really should not be given this much coverage in the MTA RBO page. It should really be an overview of the fleet, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. That doesn't change my argument this is a notable topic. Epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 00:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some of that information could be moved over to this page if it is decided to keep this article and when editors decide to cut out the cruft. Mtattrain (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the consensus is to keep the active fleet article (albeit remove fan site sources, etc.) and delete the two retired fleet articles. Mtattrain (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIR says "an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules" - it doesn't specify whether that applies to a separate article but the guideline is about whether it is encyclopedic content or not. An active fleet article would be similar to a current schedule article for a broadcaster. Peter James (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all a valid comparison. A bus route schedule, which this clearly isn't, would be most akin in this topic to a broadcast schedule. Noting what equipment is in active use and what is not is more comparable to noting current, former, and upcoming series broadcast by a network, which we do (see subsections here, for example). postdlf (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly but I still think it's unencyclopedic to present "current" information such as this. List of HBO original programming is a list of notable topics, the sections are only a way of organising it. Peter James (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable topic, and merging it with MTA Regional Bus Operations will be too cumbersome for the MTA article. Deleting should not be the solution as the contents of the article are notable, given the size of the fleet and it is serving one of the biggest urban center in the world. SunDawn (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible the topic is notable, but are there sources for the content of the article that demonstrate notability? Peter James (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable topic (e.g. fleet details discussed here), it's reasonable to have a list, as List of bus types used in London. The level of detail and sourcing can be debated on the article talk page. Even if you strip out the content sourced to TTMG (which seems borderline whether it's an WP:RS), there are still other reliable sources out there which can be used to support a list of vehicle types. Personally I'd rename the article to make it broader and include the historical fleet, as notability isn't temporary.----Pontificalibus 16:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, I don't see why we wouldn't document past fleet assets as well as present. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that List of bus types used in London is notable. Peter James (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

seriously? --Pontificalibus 17:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Ganjian[edit]

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

A local businessman had a business. There's really nothing else here. Per a BEFORE, I didn't see anything approaching RS that would contribute toward GNG. Kbabej (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like the guy led an admirable life but nothing suggest notability and zero citations. Miaminsurance (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May have been a deep level supplier to NASA oerations (that part is uncited), but even if he was that would not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete conducted searches but found no useful sources to prevent this from deletion. Luciapop (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Field hospital. Content can be merged from history as desired. Sandstein 22:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile hospital[edit]

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

This article is a very poorly written, almost entirely unsourced redundant content fork of field hospital with no notability as a separate topic. Author claims in article that a mobile hospital differs from a field hospital in that "the mobile hospital is a movable unit itself, but a field hospital is a transportable unit" and "the body materials of the mobile hospital are thermal insulation layer with a sheet of steel or fiberglass, but the tent of the field hospital is a fabric and tarpaulin". These differences make little sense and are dependent on an unsourced and plain false definition of a field hospital.

Due to the article's very low quality level, lack of sources, and general duplication of field hospital, mobile army surgical hospital, and shipping container clinic there is no valuable content worth merging.

PROD was removed with only the explanation "per WP:DEPROD". Paisarepa 21:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa 21:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa 21:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The field hospital article has had a banner tag with multiple issues since 2014 and so is clearly neither adequate nor complete. The concept of a mobile hospital is more general than that of a field hospital. The latter is more specific, being set in or near a military front line. A mobile hospital is a more general concept and would tend to be a more substantial facility. For example, the rapid deployment of temporary COVID isolation hospitals in China using prefabricated components would be in scope for the page in question. A hospital ship is another type of mobile hospital and they were used during the pandemic too. It is easy to find respectable sources which address the topic by this title – see Use of an Innovative Design Mobile Hospital in the Medical Response to Hurricane Katrina – and so our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 22:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 'Field hospital' refers to civilian settings as well as military. NPR,BBC,MedPage Today,WebMD. That the original article was tagged for multiple issues doesn't justify creating a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Sources address the topic by this term because it is a common synonym, but creating separate articles for synonymous terms is the literal definition of REDUNDANTFORK-ing. Paisarepa 23:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not see what is wrong with this. It's not technically a fork, and not so bad as to be deleted and started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: This is an unnesseary FORK of field hospital, which states in the lead a "field hospital" is a "mobile medical unit". I do not see any properly sourced content for a merge, the article is almost entirely OR/SYNTH. // Timothy :: talk 20:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to field hospital - As stated by Timothy above, pretty much the entirety of this article is completely unsourced, making it WP:OR. The field hospital article itself isn't in the best shape, but it does have considerably more sourced content than this article does. Could this subject potentially be developed in a way that it would be a valid WP:SPLIT? Possibly. Should we keep an article comprised entirely of original research in the main article space in the meantime? Absolutely not. Rorshacma (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to field hospital. Although the concept of a "mobile hospital" does seem to be a concept in its own right, I don't think we need an article for this. The field hospital article opens with "A field hospital is a temporary hospital or mobile medical unit", which is basically describing this article. I am not too concerned about the sourcing issue, though much of the prose is not really relevant. The term "mobile hospital" is probably useful so a redirect is appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge→Field hospital. They close enough related that a single article would be of more benefit. Size isn't an issue, this page is 17Mb and the other is only 12Mb. (If not merge, then "keep" would be my 2nd choice) - wolf 03:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium gold boride[edit]

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

The article makes exceptional and dubious claims with only two primary references to papers in low-credibility journals. Could not find anything else except for a third paper by the same authors. Only edits by creator Renseck (talk · contribs) were to this article, and since the article history includes hype this suggests a WP:PROMO intent. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is compounded by the fact that the two papers have managed to attract one citation since their publication 2018, it is hard to believe that this is something extremely important. --hroest 01:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is effectively original research; it is only sourced to one research group and has not attracted wider attention. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Go Phightins! 15:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anantha Vruthantham[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. PROD was removed because there is a mentioning of the movie in the singer's obituary. The singer performed one or more songs in this movie. I am not sure (yet again, see my previous nomination) how is that supporting the notability of the movie. Thank you, Kolma8 (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. A mere mention in an obituary is not enough to establish notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an old film and its hard to find sources. So mere sources must be used for verifying that the movie is notable Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What do we do about this movie failing WP:NFILM and WP:GNG? What WP criteria do you use to support your vote? Kolma8 (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Reply to Kolma8 (talk · contribs): I already left you a message in your talk page two times regarding this question you asked and you havent replied to me that yet. Please kindly ping me if you have anything to ask me here, or else I wont get notified. I already said that if we have any mere source to establish notability (for old movies only), it must be considered. You are simply nominating most of the old movies' article for PROD even if some sources of any kind have been provided. Thats not the way to do it. I also have a concern that you are not following proper WP:Before in most of the cases. Malayalam sources are present for most of these movies. I already rescued 3 articles about malayalam movies that you nominated for AFD. Regarding this case (the source is from The Hindu), I will say weak keep. I only got one source and it says It was for the 1990 film Anantha Vruthantham that he sang. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 07:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kashmorwiki (talk · contribs) I am really trying to understand how the phrase "It was for the 1990 film Anantha Vruthantham that he sang" in the provided source can support any criteria in WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, but I am afraid I can't. I do agree that all sources should be considered, but as another side of the same coin, not all sources can be accepted. But thank you for your vote. Cheers, Kolma8 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to East Lancashire Coachbuilders. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darwen North West[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Information would suit better in East Lancashire Coachbuilders where this topic is partially covered there. NHPluto (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its parent company. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. I couldn't find any significant coverage that would help the article pass WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to East Lancashire Coachbuilders. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East_Lancs_Overseas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, all details are already on its main article page East Lancashire Coachbuilders NHPluto (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP Devoke water 09:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty clear that this will not pass WP:CORP. SunDawn (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent company East Lancashire Coachbuilders. No coverage found to secure a separate article. The number of page views justifies the redirect. Less Unless (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drunknmunky[edit]

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

A poorly sourced article on a company that does not appear to pass WP:NCORP. My particular concern is that there is no coverage that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH, which states Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. Sources cited in the article do not provide the level of analysis required for this company and a quick WP:BEFORE search yields little better. Clear WP:COI/WP:UPE involvement as well as 'random IPs' are continually removing deletion tags. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My WP:BEFORE did not show any results except routine pr-announcements and hip hop marketing material which does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH at all. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — per G11, for using Wikipedia for blatant promotional purposes. Celestina007 (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per A7, the website for the "company" also has no content, so I think its a possible WP:HOAX Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drunknmunky is definitely a real brand, as I have some of their clothes. I'm actually surprised by the lack of coverage that they get as they were quite trendy for about one or two years. They used to be sold in Republic. Still not notable enough for an article, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, I was referring to the website that was on the page at the time of my comment.... and basing it purely off that and me trying to determine the image on the page copyright status. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 02:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That 'own work' tag is certainly dubious at best. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1960–61 UE Lleida season[edit]

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

Can't see how this would past WP:GNG guidelines in the third division during the early 60s. HawkAussie (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would absolutely love to be proved wrong here but I simply cannot see this season passing WP:GNG in its own right. All we have here is an unsourced squad list with no prose (I can't even see where the editor has sourced the squad list from). The creator has not edited for 7 years and I see little hope of the article being turned into something that would pass our notability criteria for football seasons. This is pure WP:OR and we have no way of knowing if the info is even correct let alone notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above and in addition per WP:INDISCRIMINATE — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources and not notable. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Less Unless (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to My So-Called Life. There is consensus that the subject is not notable but that the article should be a redirect. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Wilhoit[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to brief "where are they now" mentions and database entries. Looking through her filmography, while her role in My So-Called Life seems to be WP:NACTOR material, none of the other credited roles appear to meet that criteria. I would thus suggest restoring the redirect to My So-Called Life. As there's been some back and forth over this issue in the edit history, I believe that bringing it to AfD to establish a firm consensus is warranted. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:NACTOR/WP:GNG. Several notable roles in film and television - Young Tinkerbell in Hook (1991), Danielle Chase in My So-Called Life, and Connie D'Amico in Family Guy. Other roles include Katie Lewis in National Lampoon's Adam & Eve (2005), Madison Lewis in Social Studies, Kenlon Amrodd in The Tom Show, and Rhian in 7th Heaven. Some of these are guest/supporting roles but most are main or lead roles. Check filmography - there's lots more roles. I've just highlighted the most notable. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)strike !vote of sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FlyboyExeter. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to our articles about these films and TV shows, her role in Family Guy appeared in 18 episodes out of the show's 346, and her role in Hook is described as Tinker Bell in a flashback in which Peter is a baby, which don't strike me as particularly significant. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, indeed looks like only My So-Called Life is a role which fits into WP:NACTOR so restoring the redirect makes sense. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I wrote when I redirected, All database entries and passing mentions. Nothing enough to support an article. None of the coverage meets WP:SIGCOV (which is GNG). As for NACTOR. The subject has not had any notable roles in either film or TV. If the subject even had multiple minor roles I might relent, but that doesn't even exist. The subject is a bit player. Might also need salting to avoid recreation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A supporting role in My So-Called Life, 18 episodes of "Family Guy" (sure, less than the show's total but a significant number - almost a full season), main and lead roles in several sitcoms (short-lived ones but still a season or 2), supporting and guest roles in many other movies and TV shows, mentions in Entertainment Weekly and The Hollywood Reporter - I'm confused how all that adds up to "bit player". She's had at least a handful of notable and lead roles, and another dozen or more smaller roles, which should meet WP:NACTOR. Also GNG. Re references - As per WP:Basic If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Fairly simple really, no notable roles and passing mentions. How much screen time does she have in Adam & Eve? How many lines does she speak in the totality of her appearances of Family Guy? The Young Artist Award for Best Performance by a Youth Actress in a Drama Series award she tied on is also a minor award. So, what roles has actually been in that have resulted in her being written about, in other words, "notable" roles? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found and added reviews that document her significant roles in Social Studies (Hartford Courant, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Variety) and The Tom Show (Orlando Sentinel, Los Angeles Times), and a news source that adds some biographical information to the article. With her significant role in My So-Called Life also considered, her television career appears to meet WP:NACTOR. Beccaynr (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom. Does not come close to meeting WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006–07 UE Lleida season[edit]

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

Similar case to 2019–20 Lleida Esportiu season; coverage lacks the depth required to pass WP:GNG and also violates WP:NOTSTATS as well as other elements of WP:NOT. Coverage of individual matches can be found on Tribuna, BD Futbol, Besoccer and Aupa Athletic. The problem is that none of these sources provide any in-depth analysis so do not amount to significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 22:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now the article looks like a perfect WP:NOT case, also missing significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2002–03 UE Lleida season[edit]

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

Third tier Spanish season with no evidence of notability; no indication of the significant coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 22:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability for this season. HawkAussie (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above and in addition per WP:INDISCRIMINATE (unexplained stats, any potential of meaningful prose being added is not apparent) — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually if you take a look at other UE Lleida season articles, you'll see the same stats, I believe almost all (if not all) of them should be considered for deletion if we have already opened this Pandora's box. Less Unless (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laxmita Reang[edit]

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

Fails NFOOTBALL and I don't see GNG, India matches were at under 16 level, club matches are school level JW 1961 Talk 22:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 22:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 22:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 22:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 22:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 17:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of wp notability. 2603:7000:2143:8500:10E7:42F0:ACD8:5EF5 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 12:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lupce Acevski[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL. Article is poor and needs improving to make that clear. Giant Snowman 09:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to @GiantSnowman:'s input above, Acevski does pass NFOOTBALL with seven appearances in the Czech First League. As for GNG, see:
- Herald Sun articles 1, 2, 3 and 4
- several articles on CornerFlag.com.au, and
- goal.com article.

Happy to find more if needed but believe the above also demonstrates this article satisfies GNG. Macosal (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that WP:NFOOTBALL is passed here and probably just about scrapes a WP:GNG pass. It might be worth moving the article to Lou Acevski per WP:COMMONNAME as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

50 Black Women Over 50[edit]

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

A noble work they may be doing, but Wikipedia isn’t a platform for creating awareness nor advertising, coupled with the fact that the project doesn’t appear to be a notable one as it lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Contains no reliable sources. Borders on WP:NOTADVOCACY Snickers2686 (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear notable. I'm unable to find any independent coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, found no coverage to meet WP:GNG on a search, unfortunately Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although as the article creator I'm biased. I dug up some coverage of the project founder where the project is discussed and added a citation to that. There does seem to be a limited number of news articles documenting the project, but compare to Glenwood Archeological District, a random article I just rolled, which also has very little news coverage yet passes the notability standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenomeFan92 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @GenomeFan92, Please always sign your comments, see WP:SIGN. Now, the source you linked above is an interview, which means it isn’t independent of the subject thus has no value to WP:GNG. The entire article constitutes what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Celestina007 (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry @Celestina007; still getting the hang of WP's discussion systems. The interview I linked mentions the project in the section of the article written by the reporter to give context to who they're interviewing; I'm not relying on the statements of the interviewed person to source the claim in the article. WP:GNG doesn't call out interviews as non-independent for notability purposes, just "advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website". GenomeFan92 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GenomeFan92, it’s the same difference. it fails to establish notability, and a mention of the project in the source doesn’t do anything for WP:GNG which requires WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore, your earlier argument that you came across an article similar to yours on mainspace is being WP:POINTy & also constitutes WP:ATA. I think you should understand our policy on notability better before proceeding to creating articles directly to mainspace, perhaps use the WP:AFC method instead? Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Celestina007 is actually probably right about there not yet being enough WP:SIGCOV to prove the notability of the subject here. The interview of the founder definitely isn't significant coverage of the project, even if the introductory material written by the reporter is sufficiently independent of the project and the interviewee. I personally think the project is important and notable, but if there's not enough material in independent reliable sources, the article can't become much more than a stub, and at that point it begins to look like an entry in a WP:DIRECTORY of small advocacy organizations. I didn't try to employ a WP:WAX argument to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. I think it's the strongest keep argument I have; it's just not very strong. I'll see if I can dig up any more good coverage on the last page of Google, but if I cant I think I'm going to have to change my vote. GenomeFan92 (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I went through all the search results I could find, and I found nontrivial independent coverage of the book Jewels: 50 Phenomenal Black Women Over 50, but not anything else about this project. GenomeFan92 (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and lacks secondary sources for any useful information. —Notorious4life (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Literally no news coverage. ----Pontificalibus 07:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImAllexx[edit]

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

I noticed a notability tag on the article then proceeded to perform a WP:BEFORE which indicates that subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them as many of the sources observed are user generated thus aren’t reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the level of coverage needed to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero coverage in RS. Awful sourcing for a BLP. Spicy (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet wp standards for notability. 2603:7000:2143:8500:284F:1640:953:7AA8 (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was surprised when I did a BEFORE and nothing in the way of RS came up. Does not meet GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Batey[edit]

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

The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. The appearances listed for Brighton & Hove Albion and were made in the Southern League. Beatpoet (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been a consensus that the first division of the Southern Football League until 1920 meets FPL. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creating new discussion page--All of the above had been appended to the previous discussion from last year. I'm neutral at this time. @Beatpoet: When nominating an article at AfD which had been nominated previously, you need to create a new page for the new discussion rather than appending to the original. --Finngall ^talk 21:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lettler and previous AFD consensus that playing in SFL confers notability. Giant Snowman 22:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lettler.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lettler, per previous AfDs that point to multiple book sources that say Southern League was fully pro. One book I have said Tottenham turned professional in order to enter the Southern League. Govvy (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamariya[edit]

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

Tagged for WP:GNG failure and has original research too. Not a topic suitable for having a seperate article in encyclopedia. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article seems to be OR spun between a couple of scant references that indicate the subject exists but don’t allow us to verify most of the assertions made. Mccapra (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aslı Karataş[edit]

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

Nothing in my searches suggests a passing of WP:GNG; this included a search centred on Turkish sources. The only non-database sources found were a very brief Hurriyet announcement and a name check in Haberler. No evidence of the depth of coverage required to pass GNG. The player appears to have retired many seasons ago so unlikely they will meet the guidelines any time soon either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2021 Wisconsin elections. Go Phightins! 11:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Wisconsin's 13th state senate district special election[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This race doesn't have any nationwide implications of any kind, and the references for the article reflect as such, for a vast majority of the third-party sources used here are local sources. The article doesn't even communicate how or why the topic should be considered notable as a Wikipedia article. Love of Corey (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could see why this election was important because the former officeholder was the state's Senate majority leader...but after this election it's just going to be another seat for awhile and really not important outside of WI election wonks. Nate • (chatter) 15:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nate....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't recall ever seeing an article on a special election to a state legislature here. The sourcing here hints as-to why; it's WP:MILL local coverage that is generally excluded for assessing GNG. There may be redirect targets (the winner of the election, after it happens) but I don't think that's necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The appropriate redirect target is a section in "YEAR STATE elections" - in this case 2021 Wisconsin elections. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2021 Wisconsin elections. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smt. Ramkuwar Devi Fomra Vivekananda Vidyalaya[edit]

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

This is tagged as no source article for long and I believe it to fail WP:GNG Heba Aisha (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is clearly promotional, has zero references, and nothing useful to notability or anything else about the place comes up in a search. So, as things stand there isn't really any other way this can go then for the article to be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there may be sources in other languages but all I see in English is forums, listings and the school’s own Facebook and LinkedIn pages. Mccapra (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Not a strong consensus, but a preponderance of the arguments seem to reach the conclusion that the subject probably is notable. Go Phightins! 15:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Ng[edit]

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

References are passing mentions and WP:SPS. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC, including because "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," and because I have added this New York Times article that extensively interviews Ng as an expert, as well as this Wall Street Journal review of the Frick's 'Cocktails With a Curator' that includes more than a passing mention of Ng's role, this Vogue article that includes more than a passing mention of Ng because it includes several quotes from her talking about 'Cocktails with a Curator,' this Washington Post article recommending 'Cocktails with a Curator' and providing slightly more than a passing mention with some commentary about Ng, and this Cleveland.com article 'particularly recommending' one of Ng's 'Cocktail with a Curator' shows. When combined with the sources that were already in the article, including The Paris Review quoting Ng as an expert, WP:BASIC notability appears to be established. Beccaynr (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Four of the five are passing mentions and the they are part of Cocktails with a Curator essentially making them the same reference across outlets. The Cocktails with a Curator is the Museum of Modern Art own magazine programme. So I don't think they even qualify as sources and they are certainly not in-depth, nor reliable. This is a BLP and they don't conform to WP:SIGCOV. It need much more solid sources than mere passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 12:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:SIGCOV, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability," but I think the two Wall Street Journal articles by the same author in the article could be an exception to that general rule, because the first was published on July 4, 2020 and is a more in-depth review, while the second, published on December 13, 2020, included information about the popularity of the virtual tour series. All of the sources I have listed above appear to be WP:SECONDARY sources because they are either offering some form of commentary about Ng or making an evaluation of Ng as an expert. If there were more frequent appearances by Ng as an expert in conventional media such as The New York Times, this would support notability per WP:PROF criteria 7, so I think the NYT article contributes to her notability per WP:BASIC, especially because it is an in-depth article focused on her and her expertise. As to the other sources described above that have noticed Ng in the Cocktails with a Curator virtual tours, these appear to be independent and reliable sources, and the notice is WP:SUSTAINED over time - the articles are dated from May 1, 2020 (Vogue) through January 17, 2021 (Cleveland.com), so these also appear to support WP:BASIC notability because they are more than trivial mentions - these are not, for example, calendar listings or directory entries. Beccaynr (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I like to look at the relisted AfDs to see if I fall quickly into one side or the other to help generate consensus, and figured this article would be a quick check. No dice with that. I see merit to both arguments as there is not a lot of coverage specifically about her, but there is some, and she is mentioned in passing in a significant number of articles. What brings me from "I have no idea" to "I would err on the side of keep" is that she has a significant number of those mentions in non-english sources, including being used as a reference here and quoted as an expert here and here. I know it's weak tea, but that's why I'm at weak keep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Namedrops do not contribute to notability, nor do interviews, even if they come from RSs. WP:GNG, on which WP:BASIC is based, is clear about this. I've found no SIGCOV about the subject in my search, and the namedrops do not indicate passage of NPROF#7 either. Java Hurricane 07:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough for the career path, if more citations are available, and woman in role in a major and unique exhibition of global significance, citations enough for GNG, or if borderline WP:TOOSOON improve by more suitable citations. Kaybeesquared (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not major. The problem with the refs is that they are mostly passing mentions. The reference above for example, at [[1] states Aimee Ng, assistant curator at the Frick Museum in New York: "He is known for accurately capturing the appearance of people, even when he painted in the 16th century. They indicate poor referencing, passing mentions essentially. These ones listed for non-English sources, are really not that decent. scope_creep^Talk 23:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is a form of commentary when sources quote Ng as an expert and supports her notability as such; these are not trivial mentions according to the WP:BASIC guideline, as noted above. Beccaynr (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are exactly that, trivial mentions. Where is the deep biography that is needed for BLP's? scope_creep^Talk 23:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My first comment in this discussion begins with a quote from the WP:BASIC guideline, and explains how a 'deep biography' is not required, so I will not repeat myself. Beccaynr (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining yourselves doesn't answer of question of why there is no coverage. Name mentions, don't get spun up to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, however many there is. There needs to in-depth, independent, coverage scope_creep^Talk 00:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough for reasons cited above. She is a prolific writer and an important scholar. She is a prolific interviewer and appears often in art related productions on YouTube. Amy Ng videos Not the article it was when nominated for deletion. And we should all recall that it had been freshly created only a week before. It ought to be given time and space to grow and fluorish. WP:HEY WP:Preserve, WP:Not paper 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that she is an important scholar. No paper cites, nor h-index has been presented, and nobody is really watching those vidoes, in the scheme of things, they're very poor as sources. I still don't see WP:THREE that can prove she is notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty much accepted at WP:PROF that citation indices don't work at all for art historians (tip - they often don't write "papers" at all, not being scientists) . Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish Keep several books, albeit published by her institution. The article doesn't present her case very well, but it is relatively easy for curators at major museums to be notable, as their exhibitions get many "in depth" reviews, and these count for the curator's notability. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is not one shred of evidence been has been presented that she is a notable scholar. Instead several passing mentions, as well as idea that she is a curator, and her exhibition may be notable, without one decent WP:SECONDARY source been presented, is worrying. The whole thing has been built on a house of cards. The first six have nothing in them. They are primary sources. I'm not against primary sources, but for BLP's I need to see secondary sources, per policy. scope_creep^Talk 12:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She has curated 5 exhibitions at the Frick. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Note that the nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet near the end of the AfD timeframe. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aero International (Regional)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 20:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The companies who participated in the consortium are indisputably notable. There are references to the AI(R) consortium in several existing Wikipedia articles (see What Links Here) without explanation or context. If we were to make the history of the AI(R) consortium a section in the history of ATR, BAe Jetstream and BAe Regional/Avro, the same discussion would be repeated multiple times. More sources would be good and can be added over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Foxworthy (talk • contribs) 06:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the cited WP:RS in the The Independent 1, and WSJ 2 3. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links[edit]

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

Does not pass GNG ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 02:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the MAINSPACE article. Not the HELP page, or the WP space. Adding this because of personal attacks when I nominated another page for deletion, but they thought I was deleting from WP space. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 02:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatIPEditor:, I have little doubt that this should be deleted, but if you are going to refer to personal attacks in any comment then you should provide diffs. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, k, uhh, for the personal attack part, see my nomination for the mainspace afd of Arbitration Committee ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 20:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbitration Committee and nothing that suggests that anyone did not know that this was a main space article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I received a notification from a bot that I had contributed substantially to this article, so might have opinions on its deletion. A lot has changed in the 17 years since my major edit to it!

Firstly, for those not hip enough to talk the jargon, I presume "GNG" stands for General notability guideline?

Secondly, I agree that this probably doesn't deserve its own article, but I wonder if some content can be salvaged into the main wiki article, which currently doesn't even mention it, and into history of wikis, which has one mention in passing. Although "wiki" has now come to refer simply to a style of software, it was once something more like a movement, and interwiki linking was part of the culture. Even in modern wiki software, the facility for interwiki links is very much present, as a cursory search for the term shows.

It occurs to me that it's somewhat the wiki equivalent of the "blogroll", which is covered in the article glossary of blogging, but there is no glossary of wikis, so that doesn't really help. - IMSoP (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is going to be deleted, data should be merged into the similar article Help:Interlanguage links or Help:Interwiki_linking. Baptx (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not articles, but help pages for this wiki. Is there any content in the article (part of the public-facing English Wikipedia) which should be added to the help pages? I can't see any myself. I must admit that I am disappointed with this edit because I had thought that nobody could possibly confuse an encyclopedia article with an internal help page, but you have demonstrated such confusion here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have redirected, but that is not a option. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 13:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merge suitable content to Wiki (1st choice, but there's questionable utility in merging poorly sourced content) or soft redirect to wikt:interwiki, not seeing a standalone article justified here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ames Brothers#Albums. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Like You (album)[edit]

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

Pretty sure it fails WP:NMUSIC, one of the main sources is the deprecated Discogs Noah!^💬 18:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Noah!^💬 18:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Discogs is no WP:RS and the Billboard source is just a Mentioning , fails currently WP:NMUSIC CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ames Brothers: Barely found anything about the album aside from a Billboard review. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ames Brothers#Albums. Fails WP:NALBUMS- lack of coverage aside from the single Billboard review. Not notable for a standalone article. --Ashley yoursmile! 19:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Williams (musician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician and radio personality, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing our inclusion criteria for either musicians or radio personalities. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically verifiable that they exist -- our notability standards require certain specific quantifiable markers of accomplishment, supported by a certain specific quality of reliable source coverage about them, to establish their significance. But her notability claim as a musician is that she fronts a local band who haven't demonstrably passed our notability criteria for bands, and her notability claim as a radio host is a local show that airs only in her local market (but radio personalities have to have nationalized significance, not just host a show on one radio station in one market, to qualify for inclusion). And of the seven sources here (eight footnotes, but one of them is a duplicated repetition of one of the others), two are local coverage in her hometown alt-weekly in local interest contexts that aren't notability clinchers, two are just glancing mentions of her name in sources that aren't about her, and two are from WordPress blogs that aren't reliable or notability-making sources at all. There's only one source here (Huffington Post) that expands beyond the local, and even it doesn't say anything about her that would clinch passage of a notability criterion by itself. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here adds up to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Instagram accounts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I've carefully read the article and its previous 2 x deletion requests and conclude that this fully violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, on the grounds that "wikipedia is not xcessive listings of unexplained statistics". Aside from the fact that the list is always out of date, wikipedia should not rely on primary sources like social media. The existence of articles/sources that talk about most followed celebrities that exist from reliable sources is neither here nor there as it provides no context as to why its important. In that sense, its border promotion - in the same way that links to retailers are discouraged so as to not provide free promotion.

Although links to personal or organisational websites are allowed when they're in an article about a specific subject, this article is a list. There is also lots of coverage that many instagram accounts are fake and/or bots. As many as 90 million accounts [2] [3] [4] [5]. Additionally, this page is fairly orphaned apart from the celebrity/company in question linking it it [6]. The top text should be merged to the page Instagram - that is arguable encyclopaedic, but the running tally of who has how many follows isn't. Per WP:10YEARTEST, I don't know if anyone will care in 10 years time. I'd say be bold, delete the stats and instead merge the paragraph to instagram and paste the Find top Instagram Users link in the external links section at Instagram. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, there is WP:SIGCOV of the most followed instagram accounts and significant precedent for maintaining these kinds of lists. See List of most-followed Twitter accounts, List of most-subscribed YouTube channels, List of most-followed Twitch channels, and List of most-followed TikTok accounts. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"strong precedent" based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? I would think we could come up with a better argument than that. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like the others (and their many deletion nominations), it passes WP:NLIST due to significant coverage of this grouping. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree massively with the sentiment that WP:SIGCOV means something is notable when it is clearly a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Additionally, as I've said above, there is ample evidence that many accounts on instagram are bots/fake and therefore the reliability of the information is flawed, even if covered by reliable sources. This further hampers the notion that it is encyclopaedic content. Additionally coverage talks the profiles that have the most followers by lack additional context required to pass GNG. WP:GNG goes beyond simply mentioning the topic. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They get ample coverage for being so popular on Instagram. Someone famous moves to a top spot, the media covers it. Ample coverage easy to find if anyone doubts that. [7] Dream Focus 00:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable list, has gotten some coverage before, needing improvement is not a reason for deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also keep in mind that every entry here is independently notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has received coverage. Similar to the lists mentioned by SailingInABathTub, there's really nothing WP:INDISCRIMINATE there. That said, the article easily passes WP:NLIST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: As others mentioned, becoming a top-followed celebrity does bring a lot of coverage. Also you seem not to have fully read WP:INDISCRIMINATE which states: "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article." I would argue that this article IS the "split" into a second article, as this is not the main Wikipedia page about Instagram. Make sure to fully understand what Wikipedia policies you have invoked before incorrectly invoking them. There is a reason the previous deletion requests did not get accepted. I recommend a speedy keep on this. HungryHighway (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very obviously not a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE's section on unexplained statistics. The follower count criteria is clearly given in the lede. The follower stats are neatly organized in a table. The article is a valid split from the main Instagram page. If this was its own article divorced of all context, it would technically not be given the proper context, but since it's split from the main Instagram article, that's not an issue here. People either know what Instagram is or can click the link. Debating whether to give a short summary of Instagram in the articles does not require an AFD. The stuff about bots isn't really relevant, 90 million sounds like a lot but it's 10% of the userbase and apparently concentrated in lower-tier influencers. Also, this has already passed the 10-year test — Instagram was founded in 2010. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the sources provided in this discussion make the subject notable exists. However, the article as of right now should be expanded with sources to avoid being nominated for deletion again.

No prejudice against merging if it is found later that the sources fail to produce a reasonably detailed article per WP:NCOMPOSER. A rough overview of the sources provided here suggests merging should not be ignored yet. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Adams (organist)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. No significant coverage found and no indication that he composed any notable works. Unsourced and tagged for notability since 2011. Lennart97 (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous references to this composer and organist – see the search links above and works such as British Composer Profiles. But one complication is that this is a commmon name and so we have the similar Thomas Adams (musician) too. The worst case is that we would merge the entries and explain to the reader which one is meant. But note that the existence of multiple organists of this name demonstrates that the nomination is just a drive-by and WP:BEFORE has not been done. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on which of these numerous references constitute significant coverage as defined by WP:GNG? And, as I don't have access to it, on what and how much the British Composer Profiles has to say about him? Lennart97 (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should start with what's already in the article. I found that the initial source was a deadlink and so have taken the trouble to fix that up. This proves to be an extensive account of the subject. The nominator should explain why they proposed the article for "uncontroversial deletion" without doing this investigation and fixup first. Do they actually know anything about the subject and its sources or was this just a drive-by through a cleanup category? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly followed that link, and while very extensive, there is no indication that this web page is a reliable source; it's also hardly independent, as the source is apparently St Alban's Church itself. I looked for, and found, passing references to this person, but nothing even close to significant coverage (much like the !vote below, or is that a drive-by !vote?). So yes, deletion seemed and still seems uncontroversial to me, but here we are. Could you now direct your energy at demonstrating the article's notability instead of focusing on pointless accusations? That would be way more helpful. Lennart97 (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, Lennart97 figured out the broken link but didn't think to fix it in the article. And they followed the link to read the 40 odd pages of material that it leads to. And they conducted a thorough search of all the other sources out there, while managing to avoid confusion with the other Thomas Adams. And they did all that in just six minutes between working on the Live in Austin, TX (ProjeKct Three album) and Passion Killers (band)!? Well that's mighty impressive, but they still missed something. As Gerda observantly points out below, there's an equivalent article on the German Wikipedia. That's quite substantial now but it didn't start out like that. The edit summary for the first entry reads "Artikel aus englischer Wikipedia übertragen und gegliedert". That means that their article was based on this one and so we must retain the full edit history for attribution. That's game over. My !vote is now Speedy Keep. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could certainly learn a thing or two from Gerda, who knows how to civilly and constructively contribute to an AfD discussion :) Lennart97 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to St Alban's Church, Holborn. I'm struggling to find sources that say anything more than he was organist there; the London Encyclopedia's coverage of the church doesn't mention him. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Just look at the German article. What kind of coverage do you expect for a person from that period. I added IMSLP: several compositions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
adding: * Thomas Adams (1785 - 1858) urresearch.rochester.edu -- this just seems to have the wrong life data, but same person, same works, publication 1912 doesn't match a 1785 birth, yes confusing.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/919311 - I have no access, but the Calvary is mentioned in The Musical Times in 1935.
update: I looked now, and is contains multiple mentioning of Adams' works by Novello (publisher). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.de/books?id=M7G1CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA31 - list of Passion oratorios in English Cathedral Music and Liturgy in the Twentieth Century --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Child, digitalized by a university --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St Alban's Church, Holborn. Acousmana (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On IMSLP, there are listings for Thomas Adams I (the earlier) and Thomas Adams II (the later). Several religious compositions of Thomas Adams II are listed as well as a long document on Thomas Adams' career, written by Christine Petch (31 March, 2005, revised August 2015) on behalf of St Alban's Church, Holborn. Listings for compositions and services can be found in "Back matter" of the Musical Times at jstor (normally available free without subscription). Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Sparafucil (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per sources added by Gerda, and since several journal articles discuss his works such as The Musical Times, The Journal of the Society of Arts, another one, among others. --Ashley yoursmile! 07:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the references you've given are for Thomas Adams I (1785–1858), i.e. an earlier generation of British organists (S. S. Wesley, W. T. Best, Elizabeth Stirling, etc). Thomas Adams II (1857-1918) is the organist being discussed. Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Mathsci, thank you for correcting me. Nonetheless, he is notable per sources added by Gerda. --Ashley yoursmile! 09:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added by Gerda. --Ashley yoursmile! 09:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the coverage identified in this discussion by Gerda that shows enough coverage for WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixx Software[edit]

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

UPE, Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 17:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Radio Televisyen Malaysia. This seems the lightest way to take this off mainspace until there is sourcing. The redirect can be undone immediately the sources emerge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TV6 (Malaysia)[edit]

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

The article asserts the introduction of a new television station, yet there are NO reliable sources on the internet. Fails WP:ORG. Similar basis as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV5 (Malaysia). WWGB (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's weird is that it seems to exist (multiple Malaysian Twitter users have noted its presence) but there is absolutely no press yet, and I tried several search terms. This would be immediately notable if just one reliable source article could show up. If deleted, I'd have no objection to its restoration at the appearance of a reliable source. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radio Televisyen Malaysia. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear that this station even exists. How can we redirect a possible non-existant station to an unconfirmed owner? WWGB (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB: I was AGF that the station is launching next week. The subject has been brough up at WP:ANI#TV6 (Malaysia). If it is a hoax, then Delete is right and proper. In fact, I'd go further and say Delete and SALT. Mjroots (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found absolutely nothing RS. I found a YouTube channel, apparently of a private individual, with a couple of videos allegedly of a test card. There are comments under those videos asserting that TV6 belongs to RTM, the major Malaysian public broadcaster. However, RTM themselves seem to have been remarkably coy - not to say deafeningly silent - about its launch (said to have been on 1 March 2021).

File:TV6Logo2021.png, the logo, is labelled as "own work". If that is true, it suggests a hoax; if false, copyright infringement. The results os a Google image search were meagre, to say the least - 3 hits in Wikipedia, and that was all.

I also found non-RS (blog) evidence (1, 2) for two other Malaysian stations called TV6 or 6TV; with totally different logos.

TV6 has been added, unsourced, to the RTM article. That will need to be dealt with one way or the other. Narky Blert (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's real, it's notable. Delete it for now, but with a closer comment indicating that the deletion shouldn't be evidence against recreation if RS sources emerge. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep On an ANI report someone had reported this article to be deleted. I agree with what another said about waiting next week to when the station comes out. A delete isn't recommended but maybe a protection, till the station officially releases to avoid vandalism? SoyokoAnis 00:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There's at least one source in there now, so looks less like this is totally made up. FWIW, the source says its on the myFreeview platform in Malaysia, but the myFreeview site doesn't list it. Shifted vote from Delete to Weak Keep. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate of part of the added source makes me think RTM is waiting for a specific time to announce this: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The matter was also confirmed by the Minister of Communications and Multimedia, Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah when asked by the media, but he declined to comment in more detail. "Yes, this will be announced by RTM," he said briefly after the Malaysia Prihatin Prime Minister's Mandate Ceremony was officiated by the Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin here yesterday.

Delete for crystallballing, rebuild if the official launch date, channel number on other platforms and its programming line-up is announced by RTM. --#WikialtyForAll (No habla Twinkle) 10:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 17:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify my guess is there is an official announcement under embargo, possibly pending some approval. It shouldn't be deleted, but also shouldn't be in mainspace. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nav (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS scope_creep^Talk 17:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article supported mainly by routine funding announcements and listings and brief coverage with other firms in its sector. My searches are not finding the coverage of this company (or under the previous Creditera name) needed to demonstrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.

Deleted as A7, G11 Asianet Films
Deleted as G11 Kairali Movies
Redirect Surya TV Movies to Surya TV (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asianet Films[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY - Wikipedia is not the TV guide. These are poorly sourced lists of movies that have aired on a TV channel. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same creator and rationale for deletion:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional material for non notable company, sourced entirely to the company or to connected entities. Tagged all for speedy deletion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of the 3 articles, one has been CSD'd, one has a CSD tag, and the third is now a redirect. This might be speedy-closable in the near future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Elton John#Discography. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elton John discography[edit]

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

This article is superfluous, as all the content is in either Elton John albums discography or Elton John singles discography SethWhales^talk 15:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand the nominator's reasoning, but this is still probably a more likely search term for the casual reader than either of the singles or albums discographies separately... I wonder if a redirect to Elton John#Discography might be an option, and from there the reader can choose which of the two main articles to view. Richard3120 (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this solution, to make it a disambiguation page for the singles and albums (and possibly Elton John videography too). SethWhales^talk 19:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The average daily views between 18 February and 10 March is as follows: 570 for Elton John discography, 542 for Elton John singles discography and 875 for Elton John albums discography. SethWhales^talk 07:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elton_John#Discography. Not sure why the discography needed to be split, but it apparently is. The main article serves as a DAB better than a stand-alone page would. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Given there are 2 other pages with this content, redirect to one of them ot ro Elton John. Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bowling Green State University#Broadcasting. Daniel (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Green Radio Sports Organization[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ORGCRITE. Astros4477 (Talk) 15:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Astros4477 (Talk) 15:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Astros4477 (Talk) 15:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bowling Green State University#Broadcasting: Barely found anything about the organization. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Networks[edit]

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

The page information just feels like it would fit better in the main Nickelodeon article. Plus most of the information is 16 years old. kpgamingz (rant me • 🐦) 15:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an article needing to be updated is not a valid reason for deletion. Also this deals with matters that bridge across different networks, so merging to the article for only one of those networks seems inappropriate as a target. matt91486 (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Removing vote per below. matt91486 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything about this is WP:MADEUP; Nickelodeon is a part of ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks, and always has been. It's never been known under this name, and this is just a number of disparate sources and items combined trying to assert this as a real venture. Nate • (chatter) 01:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Mrschimpf, appears to be a hoax and is almost entirely unsourced. No company named "Nickelodeon Networks" is incorporated anywhere in the US.[8] IceWelder [✉] 13:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent hoax Trivialist (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The West Wing characters. Daniel (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Bartlet[edit]

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

A minor character lacking in reliable, secondary sourcing. I support redirecting article to List of characters on The West Wing. User:Namiba 15:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 15:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 15:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The West Wing characters, as was done for other The West Wing characters without significant independent coverage. Wikiacc (¶) 02:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Pure plot summary, no evidence of reception, significance, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, agreeing with Wikiacc: I think the article should redirect to List of The West Wing characters as it doesn't pass WP:GNG to be a standalone article. - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 15:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verbosec[edit]

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

Previous deleted per A7. Fails WP:NCORP. Brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 15:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and promotional DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the company. Easily fails WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any coverage in IRS, fails both WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Less Unless (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Go Phightins! 15:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Burgos[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, only independent coverage is a short section on the local news [9]. Appears not to have had a major screen role. Has a song with 20,000 views on YouTube. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a notable actor who has starred in a number of movies and television series and has received significant media coverage here[10][11][12]. He played a lead role in "Explicit Ills" film as Babo. His role in the movie was sufficiently discussed and adjudged as one of the best characters that garnered sympathy in the film in a compressive critique in Las Vegas Weekly here [13] and The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote in a critique that senior actors Rosario Dawson and Paul Dano “appear here solely as warm supporting figures for young charmer Francisco Burgos (Babo), who's making his feature debut” here[14]. He also played a lead role as Pitt in the film The Shed and also played a lead role in "Feeling Through" nominated for Oscar Award here[15]. And I have added new references here[16][17][18][19] in the article. Soheelmoon (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- [20] Minor soft news section on the local news [21] Sponsored coverage [22] Sponsored coverage, the rest are minor mentions and more sponsored coverage. The film is a "predicted Oscar nominee" rather than an Oscar nominee. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the number of films and popular television series he has featured in. One of the films he acted (Feeling Through) where he is listed as one of the only three characters suggesting that he played a lead role was predicted for an Oscar award nomination here [23]. The Las Vegas Weekly and The Philadelphia Inquirer reviews of "Explicit Ills" will also count for notability and the first three sources in the article. Luciapop (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and the role played in some of the movies he starred are discussed in some reviews. Northern Escapee (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gudivada Engineering College[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The always-unsourced article was created in January 2008‎, and says that classes will commence from August 2008. However, 13 years later I can't find any mention of this college other than in en.wp and its mirrors. I am not an expert in searching Indian topics, and maybe someone else can find something I missed ... but from what I see so far, this seems to me to be either a hoax or an unfulfilled ministerial promise. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not even have evidence this place exists, or even that it ever was planned outside the mind of whoever the Wikipedia editor who created the page was. We really need to go to requiring all articles to have at least one source. The fact that articles have existed for 13 years with no sources at all is just plain unacceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding anything either, which leads me to conclude that the college was never built, at least under that name. At the very least, it easily fails the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator and previous comment - school appears to have never existed. Redoryxx (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This may have become VKR VNB & AGK Engineering College, affiliated to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada and apparently established in 2008. AllyD (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After doing some research I agree with AllyD that it is probably connected to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada. That said, I could not find any evidence as to how. It could be the former name, a satellite campus, or even a department of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. That said, given the lack of information as to what exactly it is and the fact that nothing in the article is sourced (or probably ever will be), I think deleting it is the best way to go. Otherwise, I suggest a redirect if someone can figure out exactly how they are connected or can find a reference for what little information is currently in the article. I don't think one is needed at this point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and all the above. Per the above, there isn't even a proper redirect target. --Muhandes (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Neither under the title name of this article nor under the likely actual name of the affiliate college have I found the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Pereira de Freitas Junior[edit]

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

Fails NFOOTBALL and GNG not demonstrated. Currently in second tier of Saudi Arabian football, previously 4th tier of Brazilian football. JW 1961 Talk 12:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 05:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet any inclusion guideline Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devoke water 12:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the criteria of significant Dam222 🌋 (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brewery District Pavilion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. Mere existence and some notable folks playing there does not constitute notability. Searches turned up virtually zero in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP it is a good article. Evangp (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Express Live!. This is a strange one, since major bands played there, but it was only open for four years, I can't access Columbus newspaper archives from the time, and an internet search shows the owners of Express Live closed this when they opened Express Live, meaning the information can be included there in the form of a sentence. SportingFlyer T·C 23:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Inclined towards deletion with possibility of a merger particularly given that this is a second nomination, but I think it's reasonable to give this one more week to see what happens.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 12:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not in favour of a redirect as I don't see sources that support mentioning this in the Express Live! article, which in any case I think probably deserves merging to Arena District.----Pontificalibus 18:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SIS International Research[edit]

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

Page is only created to try make their spam emails that are sent out, look more legit. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 12:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Greenbook reference is not working, it just heads to their homepage. No mention at all from independent and notable sources, failing WP:CORP and WP:GNG. SunDawn (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and if any other admin agrees with me, speedy delete as both A7 and G11. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Main North railway line, New South Wales. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nundah railway station, New South Wales[edit]

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

Subject is a railway station that existed from 1952 to 1975, at which time it was closed and demolished. Is not notable for any reason other than existing; does not meet GNG. Paisarepa 01:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa 01:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa 01:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a few points to note: 1. We usually keep railway station articles, except where they are halts with no established platform or station or there's a complete lack of reliable sources or history. 2. The claim that it has now closed does not mean it isn't notable. 3. As a general proposition it's untrue that places like this don't have sources - there are books like John Forsyth's that give detailed histories of New South Wales railway stations including opening dates and history about what happened; additionally, state railway historical societies (e.g. ARHSNSW usually publish books about the history of railway lines which include the history of their stations). I don't know what's out there on Nundah, but the point I make is that most of the sources are likely to be offline and the claim there's no coverage by external sources and an automatic fail of GNG is not something that can be disproved easily (the overlap with a similarly named railway station in Brisbane means it is even harder to find sources). 4. Even despite all the above, there's a clear and appropriate redirect here for Main North railway line, New South Wales, the line on which the station stands, and that must be considered prior to deletion. If sources can't be found that is clearly the appropriate way to fix this. Deus et lex (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There could be information about this station in offline sources that I don't have access to but I was unable to confirm its existence, much less notability, and the only source referenced in the article is a self-published website which unfortunately does not provide its sources. To add more confusion, Google Maps does show a railway station at the given location but lists it as 'Oak Park station'. However, I was likewise unable to find additional references to a station of that name at the given location. A redirect would only be appropriate if the existence and name of this station can be confirmed by a reliable source. Paisarepa 17:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The platform definitely existed and there are sources out there demonstrating external coverage. I've already referred you to John Forsyth's book which refers to various bits of data on NSW railway stations (and was compiled from original sources in the (then) State Rail archives) and would cover the station. This (current) track diagram (page 38) shows Nundah as a location (which it likely wouldn't have if there never was a platform), this article from the Singleton Argus on 25 April 1952 relates to the closure of the Nundah platform. There's probably a lot more out there. I'd ask you to reconsider this AfD, there are better ways of dealing with this. Deus et lex (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - We can speculate that Forsyth would cover the station, but all that matters is whether Forsyth actually does. The railsafe.org.au track diagram confirms that Nundah is a place-name, but assuming a platform existed due to the existence of a place name is far too thin for WP:V. The Singleton Argus newspaper article is not in reference to this station. The newspaper is dated April 1952 and states that the station is closing and being replaced by an unattended siding, and speaks to a planned future deviation of the track. This article states that the station opened in 1952 and on a new section of deviated track. Importantly, all of this is attempting to simply confirm that this station even existed, and existence != notability, even for train stations. Paisarepa 16:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Paisarepa, it's time to stop the nonsense arguments claiming the station doesn't exist. I have already shown you sources that demonstrate that the station existed, it's in fact the Wikipedia article that has an error in it about opening and closing dates, the station actually opened in 1898 but was in two locations (and it was the second one that opened in 1952 after the track was deviated.) Our tendency when there are two station locations to include them as the one station, which is more than reasonable here. Secondly, for what it's worth, I've read the Forsyth book, I borrowed it myself from the State Library of New South Wales, and I know what the contents are (that's why I raised it). It covers railway stations in New South Wales and would cover this one. Thirdly, if you bothered to look beyond the single page on the nswrail.net site, you'll also see there that the station was in two locations ([24], [25]) and the first site closed in 1952 when a deviation was built (here's the state legislation approving that deviation if you want another source showing that that happened). The Argus article does refer to the same station, it's just that at the time it was in the first location (and it shows that the second was planned to be built). This place existed and is covered by external sources, so stop trying to claim that it didn't exist because it's just nonsense. Again, I want to stress that there are better ways of dealing with this stuff than running a pointless AfD - please reconsider your nomination. Deus et lex (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        nswrail.net is self-published and is not a reliable source. The Singleton Argus article refers to a station at a different location and at a different point in time than this one, so obviously not the same. If you check out Forsyth again and verify that this station did in fact exist and was not just an unattended siding or the like, add to the article the correct information with a full citation, and remove the incorrect content (which is essentially the entire article if what you are saying is correct) then I will withdraw the nomination. But asking me to withdraw it because you're sure that this station is mentioned in a source that is not cited in the article, that I don't have access to, but that you're sure confirms its existence because you borrowed the book from the library once and know what the contents are is a bit silly and not based in WP:N or WP:V. WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a valid argument. Paisarepa 16:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The Singleton Argus article DOES describe the same railway station. Please STOP repeating this claim. It is untrue and just a nonsense argument to support deletion. I've tried to show you several times sources that show the station existed. If you don't believe me that's your problem, but it's complete nonsense to continue to repeat those claims and shows how ridiculous this AfD is. I'm not going to say any more and I'm going to !vote Keep because there are clearly sources supporting the railway station, but no matter how much I try you don't believe me. Deus et lex (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always kept railway stations and there is clear consensus to do so. No longer existing is not a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. Isolated minor rail stations are typically deleted or redirected, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campstone, Arizona, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox, Arizona, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bear, Arizona, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willaha, Arizona, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manzoro, Arizona, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bromela, California.----Pontificalibus 08:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was going to suggest a merge to Nundah, New South Wales as often is the case with smaller railway stations in NSW, but is no such article and seemingly no such place exists. As the article is entirely reliant on a WP:SPS, then delete with no prejudice it being created in the future if properly sourced. Vusutonary (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Vusutonary:, have you read any of the above discussion where I have shown that there are more sources beyond what is in the article, and shown why a deletion is inappropriate? I'd be really grateful if you could reconsider your !vote, it's really annoying when people don't read things properly. Deus et lex (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Vusutonary:, and what's wrong with a merge to the railway line that I've suggested above? Deus et lex (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @Deus et lex: For all of the talk and your attacking editors who disagree with you, not one attempt has been made to improve the article itself. Redirecting an uncited article isn't the solution, what it needs is to be cited with WP:RS and expanded to be considered notable, all it states at the moment is its opening and closing years. The AfD has been running for a week, without a clear consensus, so will probably remain open for another week. So there is ample time for it to be expanded if cites exist that will enhance its chance of survival. Vusutonary (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - @Vusutonary:, AfD is not cleanup and it isn't assessed on the state of the article - the question is whether the page it is notable. I have been trying to show that it is is and have put forward sources that show that. I'd be grateful if you could take that into account rather than just telling me to clean up the page. Deus et lex (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Regardless of what you think an AfD is or isn't, as things stand, there is a reasonable chance that this article won't be around in a couple of weeks without some improvement. So the best way to enhance its chances of survival is to actually improve it, rather than arguing points of order. Vusutonary (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 12:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a myth that we usually keep stations that don't satisfy GNG - we don't, and this one doesn't. I've surfed through numerous newspaper articles via trove.nla.gov.au and found only passing mentions, mostly in connection with how small and unimportant the station was.----Pontificalibus 19:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Pontificalibus:, what's wrong with a redirect to the Main North Line article as I've suggested above? Deus et lex (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nundah Station is not mentioned in the line article, and it’s hard to see how it could be shoe-horned in - why would that article contain a sentence about this very minor defunct station when it doesn’t even mention many of the more significant stations? —--Pontificalibus 06:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontificalibus:, it's already in the infobox, so a redirect there makes more sense than just deleting the article altogether. Deus et lex (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it is, although it was well-hidden in the route map template. I wouldn't object to a redirect but the mention in the Main North Line article would need to be sourced and should probably indicate that the station no longer exists, neither of which are accommodated in the current template mention.----Pontificalibus 08:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note per WP:RAILOUTCOMES railway stations that aren't notable are generally redirected to the line or system they are on. I'm happy to add some sourcing to the Main North Line article if that is the outcome (as it should be). Deus et lex (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect>>>Main North railway line, New South Wales Djflem (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers of Commerce in the Philippines[edit]

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

The article just barely have enough context to identify the subject, which looks like a list of Chambers of Commerce in the Philippines branches.

However, the list itself does not seem to be notable per WP:NLIST and should probably not exist per WP:NOTDIR as it only has two blue links and the list can probably not provide much beyond a simple listing.

And considering that the subjects of the two blue links from web searches is the same entity now (see [26] from Chamber of Commerce of the Philippine Islands and [27] from Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry). A list consisting of only one blue link is not exactly WP:LISTPURP.

Alternatively, it could be merged into Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, though the content is completely unsourced and per WP:NOTDIR, so I would advise against merging. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 09:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 09:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 09:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 09:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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) 23:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

F Buddies[edit]

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

Appear to be a non-notable series with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Sonofstar (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G11, G12. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Wallin[edit]

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

WP:SOAP Firestar464 (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 20:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wallin Chambers Entertainment[edit]

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

Looks unsalvageable. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Firestar464 (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional. Deb (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the participation of new editors is always appreciated, their views are given little weight due to their tendency towards unfamiliarity with Wikipedia standards for inclusion. Furthermore, citation to blogs and other self-published or user-editable websites, primary sources, and other non-reliable sources weakens rather than strengthening the argument for inclusion. BD2412 T 05:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Lebeau[edit]

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

Falls below the standards for notability for film producers and directors in WP:DIRECTOR. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant director/ producer graduating from top film school, many notable connections and backed by BAFTA. User:JamesBellArt 16:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quick google search shows notable. Questionable that John Pack Lambert supports man/woman marriage only and suggests deleting a well cited LGBT person's page. Worth noting that John Pack Lambert has also been called out on multiple AfDs for his lack of helpful contributions to the discussion.Linda Saunders (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC) — Linda Saunders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Making an ad hominem attack against another editor does not help support the case for keeping an article. Google results do not do that either particularly when the top 50 results are self created sources (like IMDB and a Facebook page) rather than independent reliable sources. I suggest you check the notability standard and use that as a basis for your argument. I also note that Leo Lebeau and one "James Bell" have worked together before suggesting a conflict of interest in the creation of the article - which I will tag accordingly. Thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Confirming that I do not represent James Bell mentioned, and have requested a username change to reflect this and clear up confusion over possible COI. top 50 results are self created sources (like IMDB and a Facebook page) rather than independent reliable sources This is untrue. Third google result is reputable Bafta.org^[1], and further top 50 results results include independent media sources, not only self-created pages as implied. Notability standards guidance states a creative professional should have a substantial part of a significant exhibition or (c) won significant critical attention which Lebeau has both, including multiple links to BAFTA, Warner Bros and premiere status of his film Sugarbabies. His page has been updated to further reflect this since being flagged for possible deletion. I do not believe that a strong enough argument has been made for deleting this page. User:JamesBellArt (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response Here are 9 results found when searching him. None of these are self-made. Lebeau is notable enough to meet WP:DIRECTOR. I still support to keep.

^[2]^[3]^[4] ^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] LindaSaunders (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are just the same, non-notability lending links from the article. Is there any real press coverage from major news sources about this guy? Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes BAFTA is a significant organization, but the BAFTA links are not significant coverage. One of the references doesn't even mention LeBeau in any context other than him being in one of the photos. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the BAFTA links are not significant coverage. One of the references doesn't even mention LeBeau in any context other than him being in one of the photos. Please back up this claim. To my knowledge, all BAFTA coverage does directly refer to and cover Lebeau including ^[11] and ^[12]. The page also cites multiple other secondary sources that support points made about Lebeau. Lebeau is an accomplished director/producer, alumni of the NFTS and currently working for very significant organization Pink News. He may be early in his career but is clearly notable with recognized achievements that count towards significant critical attention. Please reconsider, or advise how the page can be improved. Deletion does not appear to be a well-argued and fair decision.User:JamesBellArt (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to start neither link is actually even coverage nor is it independent as they are both just profiles for a scholarship recipient. And this is the reference that doesn't even mention LeBeau and some of these are IMDB pages for completely different people. You keep on saying that arguments aren't "well-argued", then show us the significant critical attention. Show us the significant awards LeBeau has won, show us the in-depth articles] by Reliable sources about him and stop WP:BLUDGEONing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBellArt, please note that you cannot make a person notable by referencing claims about him to the self-published websites of people or organizations directly affiliated with the claims. A person is not notable for getting a BAFTA scholarship just because you can reference the statement to a PDF interview with him on BAFTA's own website — to make that a notability claim, you have to show that media outlets, such as real newspapers and/or the BBC, have deemed that accomplishment significant enough to do journalism treating "Leo Lebeau gets BAFTA scholarship" as a news story. And on and so forth — the notability test does not hinge on the ability to use primary sources and directory entries as verification that he's done stuff, it hinges on the extent to which the stuff he's done has or hasn't led journalists to bestow coverage about him and his accomplishments upon him in media outlets. Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy seems notable enough to be included here on wiki, and from what I’m seeing does meet the terms of WP:DIRECTOR as a creative professional. It’s clear this guy has achieved significant critical attention in creative fields. Ran a search and found extra sources referencing his BAFTA scholarship which itself is significant. He’s a keeper. ^[13], ^[14] Stuhunter83 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)— Stuhunter83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Exactly which WP:NDIRECTOR qualifications dos Lebeau meet? Also both references that you provided are press releases in which he is one of eleven scholarship recipients so I'd say that they detract from the claim that receiving a BAFTA film scholarship is of enough significance to pass notability standards. GPL93 (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical attention as mentioned. Articles actually state that he is one of three to receive a Prince William Scholarship. I would suggest to research coverage more deeply in future, so that you are not misleading other users. You are entitled to your opinion, but this is now an opinion I see you are repeatedly stating with nothing additional to add. It appears you may have some agenda here, it comes across that you are trying to intimidate users by bludgeoning the process. Please stop.WP:BLUDGEON Stuhunter83 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-Jungwon 07:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The attempt to use another editors political positions to exclude his views on keeping an article is clearly wrong and should be shot down immediately. I have a right to favor a definition of marriage that is in the best interest of children and editor above will not silence me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I strongly disagree with John Pack Lambert personal views ~~I will state I have seen him vote keep before on the articles of LGBT people that meet notability criteria in the past~~ . Here is a critical look at the references from the article. We should start off the bat by pointing out that references 8, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, and 28 have zero mention of Lebeau whatsoever. 10 and 12 are his own films and 11 is a trailer to one of his films. 8 and 9 are profiles from a talent management site and IMDBD. 1 is from BAFTA's website (Not independent from the subject nor RS coverage) profiling a scholarship winner and 7 is a similar profile ; 2 is simply a list of employees at Pink News and 4 is a list of alumni from the Warner Brothers UK Creative Talent Program; 3 is a press release naming him among scholarship recipients; 13 has only Lebeau listed as being in a photograph with no mention in the coverage itself; 5 appears to be a member profile from a club. 15 lists one of Lebeau's shorts among several dozen others (also does not appear to be from a reliable source); 16 is press release from NFTS; 21 is coverage from a non-RS blog; 24 and 29 are from one of his film's websites; 27 is a profile of an actress on a talent agency website. When you peel away the WP:REFBOMBing there really isn't much there. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment comes across as an attempt to manipulate fellow readers to agree with John and vote to delete rather than keep this page. Please remain factual and avoid discussing what you may or may not have seen. Again I would also ask that you stop WP:BLUDGEONING and remember that Wikipedia is not about WP:WINNING. Stuhunter83 (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say casting aspersions that another editor's vote is tainted is also manipulative. Given that you have taken issue with it I have retracted that part of the above statement. GPL93 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Response Nobody has tried to silence you John. You, however, have commented delete without bothering to argue your point. Something I’ve seen you do on multiple articles. If anything, you are the one that is trying to silence an editor, not to mention an LGBT filmmaker that seems to tackle issues you openly disagree with. What does stating your beliefs to be in the best interest of children, have to do with this review for deletion? This definitely feels like WP:DLC and WP:CSB.

GPL93 your attempt to defend him, without evidence, makes me question your own intentions here.

Now let’s start with your attempt to discredit this editor’s page. The majority of your issues seem to be with page citations that are clearly placed to support points made. So many of your claims are once again false. Your tendency to skim over citations means that you have missed many mentions of Lebeau. A simple exploration of 14, for example, shows that Leo was nominated for Best Director, Best Screenplay and Winner for Festival Director’s Choice. 19 mentions a connection to his film Birthday Boy. 23 mentions him as Director. 11 is indeed a trailer, but references that he is a graduating member of the NFTS in support of the claim made on the article. Should the editor not support his claims? 8 is not a Talent Management site but a hugely notable Production Company. 5 is appears to be a feature from an independent film publication, not a club. 15 is where I find your thoughts particularly confusing, as the page is obviously a reliable LGBT film review website. Lebeau’s short is even listed under ‘some of the biggest LGBT shorts’... what is your issue here? 16 is not just a press release, but an announcement of Lebeau’s project being selected for a significant collaboration between Kickstarter and one of the most reputable film schools in the world (common knowledge for anyone in the industry). 21 is an independent arts and culture media outlet, not a blog. 2 is not just a list of employees at the very significant Pink News, but a list that features Lebeau in the notable position of a Producer. 1 is coverage from BAFTA which quite frankly says it all, and 7 is a full feature and interview from BAFTA discussing his films! Throwing in a WP:REFBOMB claim does not make it so.

I believe that you are continually jumping the gun, as a deeper look shows that your claims are not well versed in facts.

Understandably, this could be down to a WP:LACK on your side. If so, might I suggest stepping back and allowing others to comment, rather than coming back with the same opinions over and over as though they are somehow superior. WP:ZEALOUS. LindaSaunders (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the BAFTA coverage is independent, nor are WP:INTERVIEWs. I am aware that NFTS is a reputable school but when it says "contact the PR director" at the bottom it's clearly a press release and not reliable, nor are school communications considered RS. Last I checked a producer was still an employee and he is listed along with other employees. Even if Pink Lens is notability lending WP:LISTICLE depreciates notability. An "Independent arts and culture media outlet" can definitely still be considered a blog. I have yet to find any press coverage of either festival so how significant winning an award from one is I am unable to tell. A passing mention of being a director for a film that has not been deemed notable does not lend notability. Also turns out we are BOTH wrong regarding Talent Manager, which it turns out is an EMPLOYMENT SITE for the industry. BTW I worked for a film production company running their digital coming out of grad school so I am not quite as WP:LACKing as you might assume. You say I am jumping the gun, but I'm not. Going to a good film school and receiving a prestigious scholarship does not mean you are notable. Neither he, nor his works, nor even the festivals from which he has won awards from have really any significant coverage from reliable sources. After reading your response, I reached out to an admin who edits a lot in the area of film to see if I was missing anything or misunderstanding the references. But he seems to have reached a similar conclusion regarding notability and the referencing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LindaSaunders, making a person notable is not a question of using primary sources to verify facts — it's a question of whether media outlets have or haven't published journalistic content and analysis about said facts. News articles about him written in the third person, critical reviews of his films by established film critics, and on and so forth. It cannot be supported by the self-published websites of organizations directly affiliated with the claims, or by blogs, or by social networking content, or by Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person, or by the IMDb profiles of him, his films or his colleagues: nothing you can say about him constitutes a notability claim until you can show that journalists have deemed that thing significant enough to write and publish content about it in major media outlets like The Times, Screen Daily, Variety or the BBC. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IMDB page for the director's film Sugarbabies shows that LeBeau won the Director's Choice Award and was nominated for Best Director and Best Screenplay (and an actress was nominated for Best Supporting Actress) at something called the Rainbow Umbrella Film Festival. It also shows that LeBeau won Best Director and Gold Medal - Shorter Short at something called the UK Seasonal Short Film Festival. Obviously this needs to be confirmed from reliable sources, which IMDB is not. Aside from confirming that the RUFF is a real thing, I can't find much information on it or confirm the awards, but perhaps someone else can find more info? I was able to find a little more info on the UK Seasonal Short Film Festival, but again unable to confirm the award results. If these results can be confirmed from RS, would this be useful in confirming notability per WP:Director prong 4 (b) or (c)? Hyperion35 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it likely wouldn't. Notability on NDIRECTOR grounds does not just freely attach to every single award at every film festival that exists — for one thing, there's actually this whole wacky circuit out there of fake "film festivals" that really don't screen films for the public at all, but instead exist solely to allow emerging filmmakers to buy themselves an "award" so that they can advertise their film as an "award winner" for PR purposes. I'm not saying that "Rainbow Umbrella" and "UK Seasonal Short Film Festival" are part of that, but I'm not saying that they're not — we simply don't know one way or the other absent sources. As films and their makers go, notability on award grounds attaches to top-level national film awards and/or a fairly narrow elite tier of major film festivals (Cannes, TIFF, Berlinale, Sundance, etc.) that get broad media coverage, and not to just every award at just every film festival that exists. You're correct that it's media coverage that makes the difference, not just the presence of the word "award" in the text per se. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. As I noted above, notability is not a question of what the article says a person accomplished — it's a question of how much journalism has or hasn't been done by real reliable source media outlets, such as real newspapers and/or the BBC, about the things he's done. There's not a single footnote here that actually helps to get him over WP:GNG, however: every single footnote is primary sourcing (directory entries, the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, etc.) and/or social networking content, and not even one of them represents a real reliable source media outlet writing about him or his work in a notability-building way. Notability requires media to bestow significance on him and his work by writing about him journalistically — critical reviews of his films, news stories about him and his work, etc. — and is not a thing people are automatically entitled to just because they have profiles on IMDb, or get posted about on the Twitter, Facebook or Instagram accounts of their own colleagues, or show press releases from directly affiliated organizations, or have a staff profile in the staff directory of their own employer. It's real journalism in real media, or bust. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Every single so-called reference is useless. The best of the lot is a BAFTA interview, but interviews don't help at all with verification. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE, and not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Too soon He's accomplished a lot at a young age, but the WP:Notability in multiple WP:RS just isn't there (that I could find). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments for delete mostly mention the weakness on references, but most of the citations do pass on WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:SELF. They are not just social media links, as this discussion initially lead me to believe. The article itself seems nicely written and neutral, about someone that is notable meeting latter terms of WP:CREATIVE and likely on the verge of becoming much more so. Agreed it could be argued as WP:TOOSOON but still seems worthy of keeping, I’d say. What else could be done instead of deleting? LeeArran64 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said the references were all social media links. But another thing the references also aren't is reliable source coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Bearcat and thanks for your comments. I wasn’t sure where to respond to this, as you’ve repeated the same thing beneath multiple parts of the discussion. I believe, however, that the right thing to do is place this after the relist, as was requested by Jungwon.

I felt bullied into giving up on defending my article, after being accused of WP:BLUDGEONing by GPL93. Now I come back to see that the two of you (who are self-confessed mates) have been repeating the same things over and over beneath almost all opposing comments - so why should I not be allowed to argue my own points? You both come across as highly contentious editors. It continues to feel like there is an attempt to scare off anyone that has a differing point of view. I won't even comment on the shocking homophobic remark left by John Pack Lambert that in my view should not even be allowed on Wikipedia. I understand that you believe Lebeau’s achievements are not notable enough, but how you’ve come to some of your conclusions is less clear to me. I’ve searched but can not find in any Wiki guidelines a reference to citations needing to be specific to BBC, The Times, etc. Not once have I referenced Facebook or Twitter in my article, so again I’m unsure why you’ve even mentioned these platforms. Nor did I only reference his BAFTA interview for his BAFTA and Prince William scholarships. Actually that interview was cited to support his mentorship with Helen Soden, who is a Royal Television society winner, BAFTA and Emmy nominee. I felt it was something worthy of note for the page. Forgive me if that was wrong. I still feel strongly that my article is worthy of keeping, meets some criteria WP:DIRECTOR and that Wikipedia and its readers will be losing out by having the page deleted. Whatever decision is ultimately made, I do wish that a fairer, more neutral debate could have taken place. Eiko237 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: and I are not "mates". I asked him to analyze sources because after being accused of mistaking clear non-WP:RS sources because I don't understand the industry and he edits a lot in the area of film. I have asked other editors to give an opinion on sourcing as well (here's an example) and there have been times where I have asked Bearcat to take a look at sources and didn't receive a reply back. Also, if you want to talk about what is "fair" and "neutral" why did your original username match that of the person who posts updates on the website of one of Lebeau's films? I understand you denied having a COI originally but pardon me if I have my skepticism given that choosing the name of a coworker (or boss?) and then writing about said coworker is generally a pretty good COI indicator in my experience. Also note that all the editors with significant editing history ALL have come to the same conclusion about the sources. GPL93 (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eiko, firstly: notability for Wikipedia's purposes requires a person to have been the subject of media coverage in real media outlets and books. There is no such thing as notability without journalism and/or analysis. The reason I named some specific examples of media outlets isn't that notability can only come from those specific media outlets and no others — but it still has to come from media outlets of that ilk. Not blogs, not the self-published websites of himself, his friends or organizations he's directly affiliated with, not the catalogues of film festivals, not social media, not press releases: journalism, in real media outlets, which report his accomplishments as news and/or analyze the significance of his work (e.g. critical reviews of his films). You can read our rules about reliable sources if you need some clarity. Bearcat (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wistia[edit]

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

This article fails WP:CORPDEPTH, hardly a decent source in the lot. An advertisement. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The article is not particularly written as an advertisement so much as a stub, and the Wall Street Journal is a decent source per WP:RSP, but what little I am able to read of it (paywalled) suggests that the company is being reported on as one of many examples of one "lacking impressive growth rates." (Normal caveat that the article is paywalled so I have not read the entire thing.) I'm not finding much other coverage. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The wsj article (i have a paid account) refers to wistia as an example of companies (also referred to some other company called SweetLabs Inc.) that raised debt from Accel-KKR to buy out the venture investors. I gather the purpose being to free founders from the stress to grow big or go public. The wsj source isnt per-se about wistia, but more about a trend in capital raising to get rid of the VCs. This source would be nice on a novel type of capital on the KKR article, but it doesnt really justify notability of this article subject. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-Jungwon 07:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Nabaty[edit]

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

I PRODed this page because I could not find any significant coverage of this individual in reliable sources independent of the subject as needed to meet WP:GNG. In dePROD message, Alan Nabaty indicated that "the name can be found on google books". I searched there and was not able to find any significant coverage there either. It's possible that there is coverage of Nabaty in print sources that are not online but these would have to be specifically identified. Publishing books does not automatically make someone notable. (t · c) buidhe 17:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, perhaps they use another Google, mine also shows no significant results. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-Jungwon 07:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet NACADEMIC or NAUTHOR. --Kbabej (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Go Phightins! 15:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear War MUD[edit]

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

This topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources such that we could write a dedicated encyclopedia article on the topic without resorting to original research. Its only coverage is in passing. These are the sources with print mentions: [28][29]. The topic had no substantive additional analytical coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar, or a custom Google search of video game sources.There are no worthwhile redirect targets, as our List of MUDs only lists games with their own articles. czar 07:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 07:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Citations to Yahoo! Wild Web Rides and Internet Virtual Worlds Quick Tour meet WP:GNG. Czar appears to have overlooked the Yahoo! Wild Web Rides cite in preparing the AfD. I consider calling the Internet Virtual Worlds Quick Tour material "in passing" to be a mischaracterization. The Yahoo! Wild Web Rides coverage is similar; both represent a coherent intention to cover the topic and provide information usable to support a small but informative article. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources do not cover the topic in any substantive depth (significant coverage). It would be impossible to write an encyclopedia article that does justice to the topic based on the provided sources and no additional sources are forthcoming. czar 04:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll try to add some sources and additional information over the next few days in the hope of improving it enough to keep it. (I played here in the days when it was hosted at the Astrakan (?) Computer Club in Sweden. Thanks!

User talk:rhockens 17:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The two print sources don't offer any substantial coverage on this game; ie there is nothing to write about for this. Namcokid 47 04:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I could not find any significant coverage and the citations already present are of little substance. GNG/NVG is not met. IceWelder [✉] 11:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-Jungwon 07:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Czar, I don't believe the GNG is met, and you can't write a sourced article to the few minor sources available. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find useful sources to support the notability of this very subject.Northern Escapee (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (with a gentle reminder that ad hominem bickering doesn't really support the goal of building an encyclopedia). Go Phightins! 15:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xelabus[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. None of the sources are not trivial coverage and have a general, non local scope. SK2242 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Against Nothing wrong with the article, adequately referenced from acceptable sources, no worse than many other small company articles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the non primary sources:
This is an example of trivial coverage listed in NCORP - "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance". It also fails WP:AUD as a local publication
This is the same as above, as well as being from a trade magazine which NCORP says should be limited to featured content that is clearly independent
This also fails AUD
This - refer to first source
This is another AUD failure and broadly another example of trivial coverage - "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel, of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, of a capital transaction, such as raised capital"
This, this and this also fail AUD. SK2242 (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Southern Daily Echo is more of as regional than local newspaper, covering more than just Southampton. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have found two sources outside of the local area, which are and. I'm not sure if they satisfy WP:AUD or if they are credible sources. There is also this source as well. NHPluto (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the first is as local as the Echo and the second is just an advertising puff. The BBC ref was useful though and I’ve added it to the article. However I suspect SK2242 is ultimately right and the article will be deleted. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBC ref is something but it doesn’t do much to show notability, as they are ultimately reporting the death of someone hit by a bus. SK2242 (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of many UK / South bus article that could have been at a minimum merged if not deleted. Extremely difficult to source this during lockdown when barred from local libraries. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-Jungwon 07:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple mentions in industry publications (including 2 feature articles) and local press. Meets WP:GNG. Lilporchy (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lilporchy: As I’ve told you before, mentions do not confer notability and NCORP is the standard for companies, not GNG. SK2242 (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you keep telling me. The relative lack of success you have in having articles you nominate for deletion indicates that you do not have as good a grasp on the policies as you would have us believe. So no need to continue badgering me, you have convinced me to change my position, and are unlikely to do so in the future. Lilporchy (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relative lack of success Lilporchy? Oh dear. See this. SK2242 (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. These went well for you, you must have thought they were Lay down miseres:[30]],[31],[32],[33],[34], [35],[36]. I realise that I'm a bit of a thorn in your side, improving articles that thwart your efforts to delete, but that's your problem. Happy editing. Lilporchy (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes only point out the kept AfDs. Hilarious. If you want to disregard notability guidelines that’s on you but I’m not worried or afraid of you, thanks. SK2242 (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator indicated a withdrawal of their nomination here but did not apply it to the correct page, and no other editors have recommended deletion or redirection (WP:CSK#1). (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glance (company)[edit]

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

The non Notable company only having routine coverage with unreliable sources. Fail to pass GNG Sonofstar (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if someone is improving this article. Cursory search shows that Glance itself, despite just being part of InMobi, is quite notable. It has unicorn status[1], widely consumed in India rivaling Instagram [2], have 100 million daily active users [3]. I am also open to the possibility of merging this to InMobi.SunDawn (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page editor has a nature of paid editing, whatever the news coverage is added as a source on the page are either unreliable or routine coverage regarding funding.Sonofstar (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sundown. Mottezen (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article has enough news source so I think the article meets wikipedia's criteria. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by DasSoumik (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Go Phightins! 15:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devadas Krishnadas[edit]

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

An article about a non-notable individual, created by essentially a single purpose account. There are no sources in the article that are both independent and give the subject significant coverage. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The usernames of at least three of this article's major contributors, Lingyin, Rachelpang, and Gouriepandey match (according to LinkedIn) the names of people who were employees at the subject's consultancy at the time of their edits. There has been no COI declaration from them (and undoubtedly the AFC reviewer would have scrutinised this article more thoroughly if there had been), and their edit histories are almost exclusive to this article. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not being familiar with Singapore, its media or politics, I only feel comfortable commenting that the major citations appear to either be mentions or authored by the subject.Miaminsurance (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Go Phightins! 15:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Callen Sisters[edit]

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

Group does not seem notable. It fails to meet any of the requirements of WP:BAND, and I can't find any significant coverage. Discogs https://www.discogs.com/artist/5489890-The-Callen-Sisters they have released only two albums (one in 2007 on Moon Mouth Records, and one self-released in 2010), and one EP (self-released in 2014). I suspect that Moon Mouth Records is just the sisters, since I can find no record of any other releases by this supposed label. No individually notable musicians in the group. The sources consist of nothing but their home page http://www.thecallensisters.com/ (which currently consists of nothing but a picture of them and links to iTunes, Spotify, etc and their defunct social media sites), a dead link to an entry for one of the sisters on something called www.harpmall.com (entire domain dead), and a dead link to an interview from offtherecordmag.com (used only to support the statement "Both sisters were fond of music since childhood, and received inspiration and support from their mother, Kim.") The entire offtherecordmag.com domain is dead, but I believe it was likely what is now https://www.instagram.com/offtherecord.mag/ , a private Instragram blog on music.

I trimmed a few useless or dead external links before opening this. Meters (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has seen no content edits since late 2008, when the presumably COI user:Harpguitar22 made a few edits, and is virtually unchanged from the original stub created in July 2008 by user:Eric278. Meters (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable coverage as described nicely by the nominator. I also found a friendly interview at a site of unknown reliability: [37], and they have some blank entries at AllMusic. Overall, this WP article was probably created as a promotional effort around the time that the band created other social media and promotional sites when they got started. The fact that little substantial info was ever added to the article after that, including their second and third albums, indicates that the band's early supporters wrote it then forgot about it, while the band never generated enough interest to encourage anyone else to maintain the article. It appears that they rarely played live and today are simply maintaining accounts for selling their old releases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There was a consensus to kepe the article, with no further discussion after the relist. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iced Out Audemars[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it shows a lack of notability per WP:NSONGS; this has not been released independently by numerous groups, nor has it received any awards or charted. Also, there was no single release or music video to indicate notability. K. Peake 18:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has multiple reliable independent sources. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Boss I would like to remind you that independent sources do not necessarily indicate notability; when the song hasn't even received a single release or music video, as well as other points risen above, there is a high chance it's not notable. --K. Peake 07:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with The Ultimate Boss' reasoning above plus I'm pretty sure it should classify as a promotional single release as it's received remix promotion. LOVI 33 04:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LOVI33. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as A7, G5, G11. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SantanaRecordsss[edit]

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

Moved to draftspace for development and returned to mainspace without improvement. The item has no sourcing and 'Google' search reveals no 'hits'. The item itself says that the label is both 'defunct' and 'not yet formed'. It seems that there is little reason why it should be considered an encyclopedic entry. There also seems to be a COI issue. Eagleash (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eagleash (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage for 'SantanaRecordsss' or 'Santana Records' or the founder 'Santana Montana'. Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I think that this is eligible for WP:A7 as there is no assertion of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes 'speedy' was / is an option but in view of the move-warring element a discussion might be a better way. Eagleash (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "History — The label is not yet formed" kind of says it all. That, and no references, no meaningful content, etc., and also created by editor of the same name (now reported) with obvious COI. Probably needs salting, as well, given the history. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, A11, G3, G11 ---Pontificalibus 13:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per A7, G5, and G11. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RealSantana Montana. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ockenden, California. Daniel (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Bretz Mill, California[edit]

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

The topos on this one are puzzling: they show a cluster of buildings, then the road and everything else rearranges, and they show "Old Bretz Mill (site)" in the Gothic "feature/building" font from then on, until GNIS comes back into play. The only book references were to "the Old Bretz Mill site", and I surmise that this was the former location of the Bretz mill until it moved. At any rate, I see no evidence that this was a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ockenden, California where I added a mention. Firstly this was the Bretz Mill logging camp where forestry workers lived ([38]), it's now a condo development ([39], map). I have my suspicions that both Ockenden and the Bretz Mill site fall within Shaver Lake, California and could be merged there but I haven't been able to find maps of CDP areas.----Pontificalibus 07:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarukhra High School[edit]

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

De-prodded high school in India. References in the article are dead links. WP:BEFORE not turning up SIGCOV in secondary sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are not nearly enough to show that an institution is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A secondary school not qualify WP:ORG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notnews applies. If someone wants to cover it a list I'd be willing to history restore under a redirect Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onești attack[edit]

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

Essentially a local news story; it’s highly unlikely this has the making of an encyclopedically notable event. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Local news event. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Comment for @Oaktree b: & @Biruitorul:; Not sure if you knew this or not, but it is listed on Portal:Current events. Multiple editors have seen it and no challenges to it yet. Not sure what that means for the discussion, but it might not be local news. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant question is: “do we, an encyclopedia, cover a routine story about how some guy in a little town tied up, then stabbed to death a pair of workmen in his former apartment?”
- The fact that the article creator linked the story on a portal, and that whoever viewed it in the ensuing hours didn’t see fit to remove said link, has no bearing on the matter, as far as I can see. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Normally that would be the case, but the Current Event Portal gets an average of 60,000 views daily. Articles have to have high notability to remain listed there. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but this right here is the proper venue for determining notability. Removing a link on a portal does not constitute a firm judgment call as to notability — first, because the article still exists; and second, because link removal is done without consensus, whereas deletion requires it. Let’s discuss the case on the merits, rather than getting caught up in the portal issue. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing major, we have thousands of such incidents in the world every year. I mean it is bad for the family but this should not be even on the Romanian Wikipedia in my opinion. Piatra Neamț fire is one thing, this is totally different my friend. Even the Piatra Neamț fire might not even need to be on the English Wiki. On Romania yes. It was not really a Colectiv or an "Indian type" event. Imagine Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all. It must be a bigger event or a serial, mass murder. .karellian-24 (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: the entire hostige crisis and the crime after was without precedent in Romania, and probably very rare in Europe. This is not a routine stabbing like more others in recent times. - EugεnS¡m¡on 10:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I know it is not a family homicide, but there are such lists on Wikipedia. List of rampage killers (familicides in Europe). Homicides happen in Europe as well, not just in the US. It is not a huge mass murder, why don't you open such a list? With homicides for instance. .karellian-24 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If you want to count something, open as well a list for National Anticorruption Directorate arrests. .karellian-24 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Can we not be so sensationalist about this? One disturbed fellow tied up two other anonymous guys for four hours. That’s not exactly a “hostage crisis”.
- 2) Do you have any evidence, expressed in reliable sources, that this incident is “without precedent”?
- 3) This was an actual hostage crisis, it’s clearly notable — and it happened in Romania, belying your “without precedent” claim. — Biruitorul ^Talk 14:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This does not seem to be a particularly major event. Home invasions happen everywhere in the world every day, and there are always murders that ensue from particularly brutal ones every other day. No country is exempted from that. Love of Corey (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event was a hostage incident with casualities. Incidents like this do not happen every day. There are a lot of articles about hostage events without deaths. - Gsvadds (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those at least happened in public places (schools, malls, restaurants, etc) and involved large crowds. Two people inside a private apartment really stretches the notion of “hostage crisis”. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event was all over the Romanian news, so it's better if we fix it instead of deleting something that is actually interesting on an encyclopedia. Editoneer (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:PERSISTENCE: “a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article.”
- Of course, since it just happened, we cannot know how much coverage there will be in the future. But I’m fairly confident it will fade in short order. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many of Romania's most important and well-known newspapers have talked about this event. Not many international ones did, but they didn't talk about other events in Romania with an article too much either. In my opinion, the event is notable enough. Super Ψ Dro 14:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Super Ψ Dro. Dan the Animator 21:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that argument is that it’s based on a mistaken premise. Nobody outside Romania has covered this incident, as far as I can tell.
- The last big news story in Romania, the Piatra Neamț hospital fire, was covered by prestigious international outlet after outlet after outlet after outlet after outlet after outlet after outlet after outlet.
- Personally, I don’t think international coverage is a requirement for demonstrating notability; we should judge on the merits. But to say that “international newspapers didn't talk about other events in Romania with an article too much” is untrue, and its untruth is quite easily demonstrable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly any event will surpass or equal the notoriety that the Piatra Neamț hospital fire had. I was thinking more about some others like the Socola hospital fire or the 2018 Brăila attack. Super Ψ Dro 10:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brăila seems ripe for deletion, at least. — Biruitorul ^Talk 14:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: It's not presented only in the local press. It's very spread in the entire Romania by the all national mass-media. Everyday it's the headline in the news in my country and I think will be for a long time. Keep it please, because for our country is notorious User:Romanichthys Valsanicola 08:12, 4 March 2021 (EET)
- 1) There is no local press in Onești, so by definition, the event cannot be covered by local news. It will be covered by the not very extensive national market.
- 2) “Everyday it's the headline in the news in my country” is demonstrably false — look here and here and here and you’ll see it’s already basically gone from the discourse.
- 3) We cannot know how long coverage will continue.
- 4) I realize this is your first AfD, and only your fourth edit of the past year, but please do try and make an effort. — Biruitorul ^Talk 14:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why was this article created so soon after the event (article states this occurred on 1 March and the article was created on 1 March), how could an assessment of been made that it is wikisignificant with lasting consequences (see WP:EVENT)? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has recieved widespread national and international coverage. Too soon to make a judgement about notability in 6 months but today this is within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I said above I don’t consider international coverage that significant, but since you’ve made the claim, could you please point out which news sites outside Romania have brought up the story? — Biruitorul ^Talk 14:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As with Biruitorul above, I'd be curious to see what examples you are using for "widespread national and international coverage". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep notability is essentially a shortcut for "from reliable secondary sources, can we write a decent article about this?" The answer, I think, is yes - though I cannot verify the sources as I don't speak the language, this looks to be sources decently well enough to be notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—WP:NOTNEWS. This is pretty routine insofar as local or national coverage of crimes. I see next to no examples of international press suggesting it's a major story. The idea that we just leave articles lying around to see if there's enduring coverage that supports notability is backwards; if there's lasting coverage then the article could be reconsidered and recreated. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - put it in draft space until we can tell how sustained the news coverage is - just over a week is not enough. If it looks like it's a long-standing event, then we can put it back in mainspace. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete— as per WP:NOTNEWS, nothing major. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ritchie333 makes a reasonable point that one option might be to take this out of the mainspace and see what happens, and admittedly, relisting will effectively do that while keeping it in the mainspace. I just don't see a sufficient consensus to draftify or delete at this time. For now, there seems to be sufficient coverage to let this discussion play out for another week and assess at that time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 01:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just so the admins know, the article has been renamed. Love of Corey (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I looked into what the press has been saying lately. (The Romanian press — we never did get to see the international coverage some participants asserted exists.) The incident occurred March 1, and coverage basically stopped on March 5.
The attacker did recover from his wounds, and since March 5, there have been a couple of articles about the state of his health. As the criminal case proceeds, I assume there will be other mentions.
In sum, a week and a half later, it looks like this story was headline news for 4-5 days before abruptly fading without broader impact, which only strengthens the case for the notion that it’s a fairly routine crime that should not be covered in an encyclopedia. I don’t object to userfying for a few months. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete relatively trivial local crime. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomislav Dulić[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR, with a high citation count of 61 and an h index of 8. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe as the director of the Hugo Valentin Centre enough notability is given? It seems like a pretty big institute that does research and teaching and has a long list of staff, students and other professors? --hroest 22:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hannes Röst, I thought at first myself, but that's not one of the criteria in WP:NSCHOLAR. Searches on the centre did not turn up a whole lot of info either, so not sure of its notability either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been improved and the subject is very notable especially for Balkan related research. OyMosby (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned, being the director of a historical research institution at a prestigious university like Uppsala should have some merit, but the fact that his rather distinctive type of research is also cited by many books in related fields, i.e. Holocaust & Genocide Studies, should be enough to get him past the notability criteria for scholars. --Griboski (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. His book has gotten a modest number of citations (in what I believe to be a low citation field), although I could only find one review [40]. But I'm not seeing the kind of impact that I believe WP:NPROF is looking for. It's possible that it's just WP:TOOSOON, although I'm noting that the subject's career seems to have slowed quite a bit since his PhD thesis (on which his book is based). A possible alternative to deletion would be to redirect to a page on the book, but I'm not confident that there is even really enough coverage for a page on the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have no actual evidence of passing any notability criterion, just vague assertions that being director should be enough (even though that doesn't pass any notability criterion). His single-digit h-index definitely does not pass WP:PROF#C1; that's not really a strike against him, because he's not working in a subject where i would expect this criterion to work well, but neither can it be used as evidence of notability. And the article lists only one sort-of-book, his doctoral thesis, which would not be enough for WP:AUTHOR even if we had more than the one review I found [41]. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 01:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a director doesn't give her automatically qualify for WP:GNG, she should have some notable work in the academics field to pass WP:PROF which luckily she doesn't have. I completely agree with Russ Woodroofe and David Eppstein explaination here. Grailcombs (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a he, not a she. It's also worth keeping in mind his statistical and regional approach to conflict analysis is also in a specialized field which can limit his exposure. --Griboski (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Luther Burgess[edit]

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

Biography of a person not reliably sourced as notable. The Military Cross, while a valid notability claim if the article were well-sourced, is not "inherently" notable enough to confer an automatic notability freebie on every recipient in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage — it was presented to 37,104 people in WWI, so they can't all get an instant notability pass without having to actually source anything — but his military career is dispatched here with one short paragraph referenced to an unreliable source that isn't support for notability at all. Instead, the article (and its sole other source) are much, much more profoundly focused on his unsuccessful candidacies for political office as a civilian — but people don't get articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, so this isn't a basis for notability in and of itself either. The key to making him notable enough for inclusion would be to find much more solid sourcing, and write much more substance, about his military career than this, but I've tried the databases of historical media coverage that are available to me, and all I'm actually finding about him is temporary blips of campaign coverage in the context of his unsuccessful candidacies, with nothing that would bolster his notability on WP:NMIL grounds at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per the detailed rationale by Bearcat. Celestina007 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notwithstanding the somewhat slapdash state of the article, there's plenty of substantial coverage about him. Examples: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7. He also got his MBE—not currently mentioned in the article—which could put notability beyond doubt by itself, and, certainly, appears to do so when combined with the Military Cross and other coverage. And even leaving aside such indicia of notability, the articles linked here are clearly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Usernameunique (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those are literally just photographs of him unattached to any substantive news story, which is not a type of "coverage" that helps to secure notability — and most of the rest of them are campaign coverage in the context of his unsuccessful runs for office, which is also not a type of coverage that secures the notability of a person all by itself. Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show a handful of campaign coverage, so the existence of a handful of campaign coverage does not automatically make a candidate more special than other candidates all by itself in the absence of any substantive coverage outside that context. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we normally keep flying aces and that, his MBE and the combined coverage identified by Usernameunique satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There may be other grounds for keeping this, but being an MBE is not one. It is a higher honour that I have ever received, but it's still pretty minor and commonplace. He would need to be at least two levels higher, a CBE, before we could think about WP:ANYBIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per very well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always kept flying aces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not without any reliable source coverage about their purported flying ace status, we haven't. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is sourced in the article on his pilot, James Fitz-Morris (see "Guttman (2002), pp.22–23"). Perhaps Dawkeye, who added this source, could chime in here with the relevant excerpt. But in any event, being a flying ace is only one path for Burgess to establishing notability. There are at least four others:

The MBE ("a well-known and significant award or honor" establishes notability for any biography)
The military cross (ditto, making two such awards)
The "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (establishing the notability of any topic); and
The "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (establishing the notability of any person)

Notably, the latter two do not exclude campaign-related coverage from their ambit—and in any event, almost all of the articles I linked above include significant biographical information, and only one is primarily about an unsuccessful campaign. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage that exists in the context of an unsuccessful campaign for political office does not help to establish a person's notability all by itself. As I already stated above, we have an established consensus that candidates are not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just for being candidates per se — but since every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, then if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to hand a candidate a WP:GNG-based exemption from WP:NPOL then we would have to deprecate that consensus and always keep an article about every candidate for anything. So a candidate is exempted from having to win the election and hold the office only in one of two specific scenarios: either (a) they can be well-sourced as passing WP:GNG for some other reason independently of the candidacy, or (b) they can demonstrate a compelling reason why their candidacy was somehow much, much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. The simple fact that some campaign coverage exists is not in and of itself enough, because there is no candidate in any election for whom some campaign coverage doesn't exist.
Now, as for your assertion that "only one is primarily about an unsuccessful campaign": out of those seven hits, I count four that exist because of his unsuccessful campaigns ("Contests Seat With King Today", "Candidate For Civic Office, David L. Burgess, 69, Dies", "I First Saw" and "The Burgess Story: An impressive record of service"); one that's a mere photograph of him (also not a type of source that helps to support notability); one that just briefly blurbs him in the 1960s equivalent to a listicle, without saying anything about him that would give him an instant notability pass; and one that's just local coverage in the local media of his own hometown in a not inherently notability-making context.
GNG is not just about counting the number of footnotes that a person has, and keeping anybody who happens to surpass some arbitrary number: GNG also tests the footnotes for the context of what they're covering the person for, and deprecates some types of coverage as much less notability-making than other types (such as campaign coverage during an election campaign counting for much, much less than political reporting about actual officeholders between elections.) Bearcat (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Except for the nom, the delete !votes are "per nom" and the keep !votes are "he's a flying ace". This warrants further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat's convincing argument. SportingFlyer T·C 13:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should respect RandomCanadian's relist here. Most of the newspaper.com coverage is of him as a candidate, but we don't keep articles about losing candidates. Some are about his work with the Legion, but pretty much every local newspaper in North America would cover their local fraternal organisations, so that doesn't lend itself to notability. His local obituary refers to him as a "candidate." If you remove all the routine political coverage we don't normally consider, I just don't think notability's been established. SportingFlyer T·C 22:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - flying ace + notable awards + additonal reasoning per Usernameunique. - wolf 16:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Flying aces article's are kept and has notable awards -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 20:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: seems to be trending towards keep, but perhaps one more go-around will help us get to a consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 01:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not very well written or sourced, so it should be marked for those necessary improvements. The subject barely meets the WP:GNG guidelines but in my opinion is notable. I don’t think it should be deleted, but it definitely needs cleaned up and formatted better. Go4thProsper (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the argument by Usernameunique. Also, discounting his failed political campaigns, someone who is a flying ace, MBE, and MC is not someone not notable. A single MBE may not make someone notable, but having three of them is quite notable. This barely pass WP:GNG but passes nonetheless in my opinion. SunDawn (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we enforce the general principle that unelected candidates aren't notable off the back of routine campaign coverage, I don't see how he passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the strength of materials presented by Usernameunique. I believe the argument should be improved, not deleted. Julius177 (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Tacoma mayoral election[edit]

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

Nothing particularly notable about this election in city with a population of about 200,000 people. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (reads article) can't believe this survived 12 years. SportingFlyer T·C 01:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was a surprising keep !vote, I should probably due my due diligence and say that local elections tend to be routine events outside the larger cities and there's nothing indicating why this stub of an article is any exception. The article fails WP:GNG on its face and I expect the only way to source this article would be through purely local coverage, which is not what is expected of local election notability. SportingFlyer T·C 01:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that Tacoma is one of the largest cities in Washington. The election was covered locally and regionally, and I am searching for any national coverage, but there is no community consensus on what categories of cities should have articles about mayoral (or council) elections and no community consensus on to what degree mayoral elections need regional or national coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These individual articles about specific mayoral elections are almost neve justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This election was the first municipal election of Congresswoman Marilyn Strickland. It was also a close election in one of Washington state's largest cities. --Enos733 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just merge the election results from this election to Marilyn Strickland's article? JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Griffiths Bekoe[edit]

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

COI article of a non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources thus falls short of WP:GNG. A before search links me to unreliable sources such as this, this , this & this. Celestina007 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject in article doesn't meet WP:GNG, sources provided are too weak. Ampimd (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing and coverage comes no where close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "BAFTA".
^ https://www.bafta.org/sites/default/files/uploads/leolebeauspotlight.pdf
^ https://www.warnerbros.co.uk/creative-talent/alumni
^ https://www.thenewcurrent.co.uk/birthday-boy
^ https://nfts.co.uk/blog/new-nfts-platform-kickstarter-projects-announced-feminist-sci-fi-western-uplifting-story-about
^ https://www.thenativesociety.com/questionables/tag/Leo+LeBeau%3A+Writer++Director+%26+Producer
^ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/about-us/
^ https://www.unrestrictedview.co.uk/rainbow-umbrella-film-festival-2021-9th-january/
^ http://screeningroom.nfts.co.uk/detail/videos/tv-entertainment/video/6133192084001/sugarbabies---trailer
^ https://nfts.co.uk/blog/netflix-ceo-reed-hastings-tells-nfts-graduation-students-during-2020-showcase-theres-never-been
^ https://www.bafta.org/supporting-talent/scholarships/leo-lebeau-prince-william-scholar
^ https://www.bafta.org/sites/default/files/uploads/leolebeauspotlight.pdf
^ https://www.reubenfoundation.com/bafta-announces-scholarship-recipients-from-uk-and-china/
^ https://www.fenews.co.uk/press-releases/19665-bafta-announces-scholarship-recipients-from-uk-and-china

[1] "BAFTA".

[2] ttps://www.bafta.org/sites/default/files/uploads/leolebeauspotlight.pdf

[3] ttps://www.warnerbros.co.uk/creative-talent/alumni

[4] ttps://www.thenewcurrent.co.uk/birthday-boy

[5] ttps://nfts.co.uk/blog/new-nfts-platform-kickstarter-projects-announced-feminist-sci-fi-western-uplifting-story-about

[6] ttps://www.thenativesociety.com/questionables/tag/Leo+LeBeau%3A+Writer++Director+%26+Producer

[7] ttps://www.pinknews.co.uk/about-us/

[8] ttps://www.unrestrictedview.co.uk/rainbow-umbrella-film-festival-2021-9th-january/

[9] ttp://screeningroom.nfts.co.uk/detail/videos/tv-entertainment/video/6133192084001/sugarbabies---trailer

[10] ttps://nfts.co.uk/blog/netflix-ceo-reed-hastings-tells-nfts-graduation-students-during-2020-showcase-theres-never-been

[11] ttps://www.bafta.org/supporting-talent/scholarships/leo-lebeau-prince-william-scholar

[12] ttps://www.bafta.org/sites/default/files/uploads/leolebeauspotlight.pdf

[13] ttps://www.reubenfoundation.com/bafta-announces-scholarship-recipients-from-uk-and-china/

[14] ttps://www.fenews.co.uk/press-releases/19665-bafta-announces-scholarship-recipients-from-uk-and-china

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]