Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 11	March 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Computer Art[edit]

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

The only source I can find covering ILCA in any substantial detail is the article from Nintendo Life, and even the information there is ostensibly based upon what the company says about itself (e.g. a huge chunk of the text is a verbatim press release, another huge chunk is a tweet from the company, and every picture of their office used in the article was taken by the company). While they assisted with notable games such as Yakuza 0, etc., and some may see this as a surface-level contributor to notability, the scope of their assistance was clearly limited bordering on negligible. For example, taking a look at the Yakuza 0 credits (skip to 45:00 for the actual mention, but watching them all the way through paints a more telling picture), they're listed among dozens of companies as "Casting Cooperation" with two listed credits for "Producer"; they're effectively a footnote deep into the credits. The sparse sources I can find that even mention this subject's existence do so in relation to the upcoming Pokemon titles. As an example, a Polygon article: "Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl are being developed by ILCA, Inc., the studio behind Pokémon Home. ICLA’s Yuichi Ueda and Game Freak’s Junichi Masuda are directing the games." Or The Verge: "Pokémon Home developer Ilca is working on both games alongside Game Freak." And that's it. That's the extent of the coverage in those sources. There's clearly not enough reliable, independent coverage to construct an article to Wikipedia's standards. The fact that the only two reliable sources I can find that even mention what the subject's name stands for (Nintendo Life and Eurogamer) can't even agree on what that is ("I Love Computer Art" and "I Love Computer Arts", respectively) is the icing on the cake and a pretty telling indicator of the subject's notability. There may be more coverage in Japanese sources that could bring the subject in line with notability guidelines, but that's outside of my wheelhouse, and what WP:BEFORE I did conduct in Japanese (using the term "ポケットモンスター ILCA" ["Pocket Monsters ILCA" in English]) showed little promise, for example this article from Engadget.

TL;DR: This is, as best I can tell, a cut-and-dry case of WP:TOOSOON. For those curious, this is the article for the company on the Japanese Wikipedia. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your argument for the deletion of my article, I may have to agree. While working on two Pokémon games, the studio isn't very notable outside of this and has received little media attention. I agree that this article may be deleted and if I wish to recreate the article in the future, I will wait until it has worked on more notable projects to a more important degree. VideoGameMovie 9:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGameMovie (talk • contribs)

Sounds reasonable. I would 100% Support recreating the article (albeit removing most of the 'List of games developed by ILCA, as it seems misleading except for games like Home or BD/SP) once the company starts becoming notable. I know WP:TOOSOON is often used as a euphemism for "I mean anything can happen, right?", but I used it here with the belief that, by the time the remakes are out or shortly thereafter, ILCA will likely meet notability guidelines – at least enough so to create a stub. This isn't guaranteed, of course. For example, if our article on Game Freak is anything to go by, even coverage of such a famous, decades-old developer is surprisingly sparse. However, a fair amount of that coverage is from the 2010s, so I see a ray of hope for an ILCA article in the foreseeable future. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:10, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalitta Charters Flight 720[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this relatively minor incident. The refs are not mainstream sources and even they find little to say and what they do say is rather too closely parroted by the article. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 03:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This incident was so minor, it fails WP:GNG.TH1980 (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reliable sources and Notability not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of being noteworthy for a mention in wikipedia, just a bad day at the office. MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 20:09, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1957–58 UE Lleida season[edit]

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

Similiar to the scenario in the 1960–61 UE Lleida season, I can't see how this article would pass WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BDFutbol and RFEF don't even seem to cover this although the former does have the squad list for the season prior to this one. Even if this squad list could be sourced somewhere, there's still no evidence that this is notable enough for a stand-alone article as per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage from independent sources. Seems to be a case of WP:IINFO to me. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not any significant coverage which can meet WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any advantage against the league season article. In fact, this article is missing information which could easily be added, games, league data, etc. Still, as pointed out, it clearly fails WP:GNG, it is possible this could change for the article to pass GNG, but in it's current state, completely fails out-right. Govvy (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage not found and fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:09, 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) 01:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Habinsky[edit]

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

Non-notable actor/producer. Could not find any RS about him. Natg 19 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. No WP:RS, fails WP:NBIO. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article that lacks the reliable sources to back up what it claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. This interview is probably the best source but an interview does not establish notability and it is unclear if the magazine is a reliable source. Hollywood Reporter is a reliable source bu the subject is just a credit line in this article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article written like promotional page. Notability not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found an interview and a mention of him, however these sources don't add up to his notability. Fails WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past outcomes about producers and WP:SIGCOV. We routinely delete almost all articles about film producers, who are run of the mill. There's virtually no coverage of this person. His connection to Leo, an award-winning actress, is obscure. He has few mentions on Twitter, and zero followers. There are zero newspaper articles about this person. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable producer who does not rise to meeting notability requirements. —Kbabej (talk) 03:13, 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D'Monroe[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Cannot find any RS about him. Natg 19 (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions, just because a play is notable does not make every production of it notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Ashley[edit]

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

Non-notable actor/singer-songwriter. Has not produced any notable music, or appeared in a main role in any films or TV series. Natg 19 (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable actor/singer, fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NSINGER, and WP:GNG. A quick Google search gave me two sources: Entertainment Weekly and Hollywood Reporter, both of which are passing mentions and does not establish notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 07:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not significant amount of current sources which can establish WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. fails WP:GNG WP:NSINGER and WP:NACTOR. Non-notable. --Kemalcan (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:SINGER, and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally based on his own website, which is never enough. Clearly fails both GNG and music notability by huge margins.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. I found zero newspaper and news articles on Google about this person, other than the passing mentions already found. I found nothing relevant on social media; there appears to be several unrelated accounts, which are NSFW. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NACTOR and NSINGER. —Kbabej (talk) 03:19, 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stine Holm[edit]

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

I can't find anything to suggest that Holm can meet WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage in this article and I'm not finding anything better in searches. I found a transfer rumour, a transfer announcement and a brief announcement from her club about her leaving. This is WP:ROUTINE and does not count as significant in-depth coverage.

Players could get presumed notability through WP:SPORTCRIT if they have played in a major international competition at the highest level, but Holm hasn't played in the European Championship, nor the World Championship nor the Olympics. There is no evidence that she is a significantly notable figure within handball. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found two articles which are only about her [2] & [3] and some more which she appears in some statistics. Furthermore she plays in the highest Danish league. --Malo95 (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They both look like routine transfer announcements to me. The first one provides a small bit of depth but I wouldn't say that any of them amount to WP:SIGCOV addressing her in detail. In other words, I'm not convinced that we can build a biography from what's available. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack the indepth significant coverage that would lead to the actual passing of GNG. Routine transfer announcements are not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, fails WP:SPORTCRIT because he didn't played in a major international competition at the highest level. Grailcombs (talk) 15:02, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Departure Process[edit]

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

This falls under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. This could easily be covered in other articles. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom's well resoned explanation of why this is not appropriate content for Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a manual. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the information is at Airport check-in, Airport security, and Boarding (transport)#Aviation. All those pages are linked from Air travel#Commercial air travel, there's no need for this article. (and it's not a good redirect candidate) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:29, 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 Groupe PSA. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stellantis France[edit]

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

Because of WP:OR: There is no new Company Stellantis France S.A., PSA is merged into FCA N.V. an after it FCA N.V. is renamed to Stelantis N.V. See:

https://lei.report/LEI/549300LKT9PW7ZIBDF31:
- Stellantis N.V. LEI 549300LKT9PW7ZIBDF31
- ex Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.
- ex Fiat Investments N.V.
https://www.stellantis.com/en/legal-notes
- "The merger of Peugeot S.A. into Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. subsequently renamed Stellantis N.V. took effect on January 16, 2021. All information for periods prior to that date relates to FCA Group and PSA Group pre-merger."
The exististing french subisdaries AUTOMOBILES PEUGEOT S.A. and AUTOMOBILES CITROËN S.A. of before Peugeot S.A. as of the merge in of PSA into FCA so then now subsidaries of Stellantis N.V.
- https://www.peugeot.fr/infos-legales.html
- https://www.citroen.fr/mentions-legales.html

194.166.199.118 (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 15:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thx @Finngall. I would have done it, but as a IP it is not allowed to create new pages. 194.166.199.118 (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 21:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, under WP:A10, seems to be a duplicate of Groupe PSA. SailingInABathTub (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Groupe PSA per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, under WP:A10, as this is a duplicate topic, already covered (in much more depth) at Groupe PSA which has merged to form a new company named Stellantis. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to either Groupe PSA or Stellantis. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:50, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uthhan[edit]

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

I'm concerned that this might not pass WP:NORG, in particular WP:ORGCRIT, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In a WP:BEFORE search, I found two sources, Patna Daily and Techstory where there is an actual author and it isn't just a blatant press release written by Utthan themselves. I'm still not convinced that this meets the high bar at NORG and even the two links above look like they might be promotional/sponsored.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://in.news.yahoo.com/noble-initiative-empower-artisans-eliminating-134524980.html	Clearly a press release		It's all written by the organisation so does not contribute to SIGCOV	✘ No
https://goldeneraroyalgroup.com/	?	?	Passing mention	✘ No
https://knnindia.co.in/news/newsdetails/features/uthhan-connecting-profits-with-artisans	Another press release		We need more than press releases	✘ No
http://bizodisha.com/2019/11/uthhan-helps-hapless-artisan-in-odisha-to-survive/		?	Another part of their promo	✘ No
https://indianstartupnews.com/uthhan-first-marketplace-for-india-artisans-to-sell-their-handicrafts-to-end-customers		?	The link is dead but the title is exactly the same as the other press releases	✘ No
https://developergang.com/uthhan-a-mobile-app-for-indian-artisans/		?	Promo for their app does not make it notable	✘ No
https://uthhanecom.gergstore.com/			This is a link to their shop	✘ No
https://www.facebook.com/uthhan.org/posts/1958291987634575			This is their Facebook page	✘ No
https://uthhanecom.gergstore.com/Uthhan_Crafts_Mela_2020			This is their own shop	✘ No
https://www.facebook.com/uthhan.org/posts/2096823587114747			This is their Facebook page	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page is applied for Deleting for adding external links which are linking to promotional contents. Now, the admin has removed the promotional/sponsored links to any other external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VENKATESHafx (talk • contribs) 12:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any independent, reliable sources to show that this passes WP:NORG? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-11 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 21:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not seem to have reliable sourcing, nor is it clear if this is actually an ORG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from the Free Press Journal Q&A with the founder, my searches found a Patna Daily article about a recent campaign [4] but it is marked as a reader contribution. I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate that this project has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough reliable sources which meets WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 16:05, 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 speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#4: Nomination by a blocked sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) Java Hurricane 15:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Teitgen[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No single source cited Jenyire2 20:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - did you make a WP:BEFORE within 11 minutes after creation ? Dozens of sources given. I suggest to withdraw it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Case of editor not doing WP:Before raising AFD. Added reference from Journal Revue d histoire.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just started the article and, to be sure, there is not a lot of info ou there on him. Still, considering his unique role during the Algerian War and the fact that there is an article on the French Wiki on Paul Teitgen, I vote to keep it Yosy (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep numerous sources, I have added 3 that I had to hand. Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added two further refs - sorry my French is very rusty. His father looks like a interesting story too, what I can make out!.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is well-sourced and has significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant presence about this subject, hence meets WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clearly notable. Furthermore, I would have thought that his status as a Prefect, which I think is a kind of local governor in the French system ought to be sufficient to make him notable, without more. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Kemalcan (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we can conclude that the article is definitely a keeper! And a note of thanks to all of you - in no time after I created the article, I had several Wikipedians contributing in with information and references. A great example of article creation and this is what Wikipedia is all about!! Bravo to us!!! Yosy (talk) 05:59, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Style Uechi Ryū[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 20:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, appears to be an attempt to include reverted edits from Uechi-ryū. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is completely unsourced and makes no claims of notability. There's not even evidence that the subject exists. I know my search for the article's title turned up no indication of notability. Seems like a strong speedy delete candidate, but should at least be deleted. Papaursa (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It the content is useful it should clearly be in the Uechi Ryū article (and referenced). Nigej (talk) 12:35, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Amoah (businessman)[edit]

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

I do not see the basis of notability here. Many small newspaper items, but nothing substantial or comprehensive--and based on the reported accomplishments, no reason why there ought to be. Owner of various non-notable business, and a bureaucrat in the sports industry. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found some sources at Google Books, among others "Political Handbook of the World 2005-2006" is referring to him on page 446, was a Party leader in Ghana. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @CommanderWaterford: Is that the same person? There seem to be lots of Kofi Amoahs out there based off my WP:BEFORE. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰*** 17:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle, sorry for the late reply, missed the first ping. A cite in the book at page 446 https://books.google.es/books?id=u3fFTiEMrGkC&q=%22Kofi+Amoah%22+businessman+-wikipedia&dq=%22Kofi+Amoah%22+businessman+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwix9dCHy6vvAhW1aRUIHRdKBeEQ6AEwBHoECAkQAg refers to a Kofi Amoah who returned 1992 from the US and is a Leader of the GDRP Party. Is he definitely the same person? Good question. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kofi Amoah is notable in Ghana. Sources are reliable, and most are big news agencies in Ghana. Kofi Amoah was appointed in 2018 by FIFA to be president of the Ghana Football Association Normalization committee when the then President was suspended by FIFA. Selorm18 16:21, 1 March 2021
Delete per nom. If the subject is notable mainly due to Amoah being the head of the Normalization Committee of the Ghana Football Association, then this football body would have to be notable in the first place, but it is not apparent to me that it is notable (and it doesn't have it's own article) — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The football body is notable and has it's own article.Selorm18 (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need a bit of clarification/assessment of the sources CommanderWaterford found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 20:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I note that we almost always delete articles about sports managers absent significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 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 delete. Source analysis is compelling Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Chuntz[edit]

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

A working stuntman, but meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, it is quite detailed and has a lot of references. Other similar stuntman like Max Faulkner and Terry Walsh have been on here for years and don't have sources. Likewise, there are a number of actors, sometimes minor (Laurence Harrington, Brian Grellis, Tom Kelly) who have pages and have been on here for a number of years with no sources. Maybe we should bring this lot in for questioning... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:D884:6401:E9CC:2EBD:8A38:E727 (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WP:OSE, feel free to nominate those other articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is known to Whovians in the Doctor Who universe. Has also worked in many other franchises such as The Avengers so probably gives him cult status from these areas too. Not to mention, he played a well-known French singer (who he bore a strong resemblance to). The Krays connection is interesting but doesn't make him notable. The fact he also worked taught kung fu and martial arts, as well as being a taxi driver shows he had a varied career. Despite rarely being credited, surely it meets at least one criteria? WP:GNG? WP:ENT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:D884:6401:8C6B:8E92:2C17:9473 (talk) 10:48, 28 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) 17:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with above that Doctor Who and The Avengers probably gives him cult status and GNG. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)strike !vote of sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FlyboyExeter. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From my research he does seem to meet WP:GNG. His work on Doctor Who and Avengers are mentioned across multiple sources. No need here to delete. LeeArran64 (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of the above keep !votes are based on actual policy. Being on a cult program is not the same as the actor having cult status. Working actor/stuntman, just like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. Onel5969 is absolutely right that being a stuntman on a popular show is not the same as true "cult" status for which NACTOR-2 was designed to apply to. Current sources do not meet GNG, with the Auty source appearing to be self-published. As the IP and LeeArran indicate, we can certainly verify he exists and did the stuntwork, but this is not the same as demonstrating notability. My mind could be changed if it could be shown that the books mentioned in references, but not specifically footnoted anywhere, give significant coverage, but so far the only thing that's been demonstrated are stunt credits and self-published sources. MarginalCost (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Close call. Giving this one more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 20:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having seen what recently happened with Peppi Borza, I have provided a list of possible references and sources which could be used to help save the page. They are also included on the talk page.

Doctor Who^[1] (Radio Times), ^[2] (Inferno accident), ^[3], ^[4] (interview part 1), ^[5] (interview part 2)

The Avengers^[6]

Books^[7] ^[8]

Moviedude^[9] (extra credits)

Aveleyman - The Actors Compendium^[10] (ditto)

The Jewish Chronicle^[11] (talks about him working on Sexton Blake, if anyone is a member, could they access the article?)

Shutterstock^[12] (features images of The Persuaders and The Saint)

Also credited as Allan Chuntz^[13]^[14]

Feel free to use them if you think they will help the article. There could be more references out there which people could add to help keep the page.2A00:23C6:D884:6401:7D9A:6C56:5A21:4CA9 (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ BBC Genome
^ "A Brief History Of Time (Travel): Inferno". www.shannonsullivan.com. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
^ "BBC - Doctor Who Classic Series Episode Guide - Cast and crew". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
^ McLay, John; Richardson, David (August 1989). "The Fall Guys: Creating Havoc". Doctor Who Magazine (151): 13–17.
^ McLay, John; Richardson, David (September 1989). "The Fall Guys: Creating Havoc". Doctor Who Magazine (152): 13–16.
^ "Stuntmen and Doubles - The Avengers Forever". theavengers.tv/forever/index.htm. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
^ Wise, Arthur; Ware, Derek (1973). Stunting in the Cinema. Constable. p. 10. ISBN 0-094-59090-7.
^ Cavendish, Richard (1973). Man, Myth & Magic: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Supernatural, Volume 6. Purnell. p. 219.
^ Alan Chuntz - Movie Dude
^ Alan Chuntz - Aveleyman
^ The Jewish Chronicle, 27 Nov 1970; pages 18/19
^ [1]
^ Allan Chuntz - British Comedy Guide
^ New Canadian Film, Volumes 7-9. Cinémathèque québécoise. 1975.

None of these sources are evidence of the significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources to meet notability standards. In particular, none show evidence of significant coverage

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
BBC Genome	BBC was original airer of series		just a single credit line	✘ No
Shannon Sullivan		self-published	2 sentences	✘ No
BBC	BBC was original airer of series		just a single credit line	✘ No
Dr Who Magazine (August 1989)	All information seems to come from interviews with the source, not independent journalism	?	Passing mentions of a few stunts, not significant coverage	✘ No
Dr Who magazine (September 1989)	All information seems to come from interviews with the source, not independent journalism	?	Passing mentions of a few stunts, and one spoken line, not significant coverage	✘ No
The Avengers TV		Self-published and user-submissions, no evidence of editorial oversight	2 sentences	✘ No
Stunting in the Cinema			1 mention visible in search results (breaking a mirror)	✘ No
Man, Myth & Magic			only seems to be one mention on search results	✘ No
Movie Dude		Self-published	Just a list of characters, literally no prose	✘ No
Aveleyman		self-published	Just a list of characters, literally no prose	✘ No
Jewish Chronicle (1970)			? Search only shows one line from newspaper, but seems to be routine. No evidence of significant coverage demonstrated	? Unknown
ShutterStock		?	Just two photos, literally no prose	✘ No
British Comedy Guide		user-generated content, no evidence of editorial oversight		✘ No
New Canadian Film		?	? Any mention is not visible in search results	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

There are a few here that might, theoretically, have significant coverage buried somewhere inaccessible to any of us, but nothing here provides any evidence of significant coverage. You are welcome to disagree with my assessments above, but please be specific about where you disagree.

Rather than a multitude of several poor sources, can you (or anyone else here !voting keep) point to the 2 or 3 best sources that you believe meet GNG? MarginalCost (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It'd be a shame if the page was deleted. Hopefully, it won't come to that. What lessons can we learn if articles are created for other stuntmen like Marc Boyle, Steve Emerson, Ken Barker, Nick Hobbs, Gareth Milne...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:D884:6401:B594:B0D3:2334:E07 (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to create articles for others, make sure that they meet our criteria for notability, which in most cases will be met by meeting the general notability guidelines by including multiple reliable and independent sources that give significant coverage to the subject. See WP:42. MarginalCost (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Maybe not much of a source but a brief interview on page 37 of TV Zone, June 1995 where he talks about working as a taxi driver and being one of the first people in Britain to practise karate.

Ah, heck! Why don't we let things stand. Other articles have been on here for donkey's with the same similar sources so this really isn't any different.2A00:23C6:D884:6401:9503:6B1B:AC14:FE8D (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews do not meet the criteria for independence of a source. Even if they did, 3 sentences is not significant coverage MarginalCost (talk) 14:29, 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 delete. Despite a couple of gos no policy based argument for keeping has emerged Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casey O'Neill[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights in top tier promotion (UFC) and fail GNG for content of of fights is random sport report. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria HeinzMaster (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the suggestion that this page should be deleted. O'Neill had an extremely impressed UFC debut and that view has been echoed by many main stream media outlets like UFC.com and Bloody Elbow. Clearly she is going to have at least one more UFC fight after this performance and in all likelihood will have many UFC fights in her career. Notability is no longer an issue as she's fought for the biggest company in the world. User:Litmus123 02:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.155.190.251 (talk) [reply]

Comment: It is not about she will have more fights - WP:CRYSTAL, but when she has secured the fights that required. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It shouldn't just be about reaching an arbitrary number of UFC fights. Let's use Anderson Silva as an example. His article was created on June 2, 2006 (26 days before his UFC debut). He then had one of the most impressive UFC debuts we've ever seen and not once did anyone suggest the deletion of his page either before or after his UFC debut. ^{(User talk:Litmus123)} 03:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.155.190.251 (talk) [reply]

Comparing Casey to Anderson Silva is not valid since Silva was already a PRIDE veteran at that point, with PRIDE being a top tier organization when it was in business. O'Neill has fought for Eternal MMA and UAE Warriors, two organizations which are no where the level of PRIDE. HeinzMaster (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silva was just used as an example but since you have an issue with the low level company a fighter has come from, let's use Junior dos Santos as an example. He fought in considerably smaller Brazilian promotions (Demo, Minotauro etc.) and captured six wins before debuting in the UFC on October 25, 2008 and won in impressive style. His wiki article was then created on October 26, 2008 and not a single person suggested the article should be deleted at any point. How about Max Holloway? He was fighting in low level local Hawaiian promotions and had only competed in four professional fights before debuting in the UFC. His wiki article was created on January 20, 2012 (15 days before his UFC debut) and he actually lost in his first UFC fight but once again not a single user suggested his page should be deleted. I'm certain there are countless examples of this happening so why are the rules different for the Casey O'Neill page? Clearly the arbitrary criteria hasn't been followed on many occasions and I would argue as soon as a fighter has competed in the largest MMA promotion in the world - the UFC, they have become notable enough to warrant their own wiki article. Litmus123 (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Litmus123 pls familiar yourslef wit the said guideliens and please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Litmus123 Wikipedia is edited by volunteers. Errors, vandalism pages/pages, unsourced content, and etc have added in everyday and many to them are new user who do not know about Wikipedia guidelines, and their edits went unnoticed. If a page is created where by the subject has yet to be notable but no one takes the action to bring it to AfD, then it stays Wikipedia, same as vandalism edits. Do note even a page is accepted by reviewer, but the subject is not notable, then any editor can nominate the page to be deleted. If the page survive the nomination, the page still can re-nominated for deletion by other editor if the future if notability is not established, in short only article is notable will stay in Wikipedia in good. O'Neil page will be accepted when she has fought 3 fights in UFC and not before. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with what you've written because an impressive UFC debut makes a fighter notable enough to warrant a wiki article in my opinion but obviously I'm powerless in this situation. Litmus123 (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Litmus123 I understand you are a new editor and might not aware some of the Wikipedia guidelines. What I say above is not my opinion but that is how Wikipedia works/guidelines. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the whole point of this page to debate whether an article should be deleted? There hasn't been much debating going on here. I've put forward multiple points which I feel are valid in terms of maintaining the article and you're just ignoring what I'm writing and sticking to an arbitrary number that really doesn't indicate notability at all. Litmus123 (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Litmus123 AfD is a discussion and not a debate and it is based on notability guidelines. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's confusing when this page been placed inside categories such as 'AfD debates'... I've made it clear I completely disagree with the reasoning for deleting the article so there isn't really any reason to take this discussion any further unless someone else has something to add. Litmus123 (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She definitely does not meet WP:NMMA. I think that it's quite likely she will get the two additional top tier fights required to meet that criteria, but she's not there yet. Rather than outright deleting the article and its information, I'd suggest putting it in Litmus123's sandbox so he can resubmit it when she meets WP:NMMA. I'm not suggesting to leave it in draft space because it's unlikely that she will meet WP:NMMA in the six month window used to improve drafts. Of course, the draft copy of this article also needs to be dealt with. Litmus123, you took a draft article, Draft:Casey O'Neill, and copied it into the article mainspace without changing anything or submitting it for review. These actions by new editors are generally frowned upon. You should also familiarize yourself with the MMA notability criteria at WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The draft copy of the subject Draft:Casey O'Neill is also created by Litmus123. The draft was declined and Litmus123 just created the same page in new page. So to move to Ltmus123 does not make sense to place it on Litmus123's sandbox and we already have a copy of draft, which we are adding info and will add more sourced content when it is available such as new fights, until such time the subject is notable to review and move to new page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I knew he created the draft and then recopied it to the main article space. I was just concerned that, given the infrequency of many MMA fighters, there might not be much in the way of improvements during the standard six month period. I just didn't want everything to disappear since I think there's a very good chance she becomes WP notable. Since he created the article I thought a move to his sandbox was reasonable. If you're convinced there will be enough changes to the draft, I'll defer to you. Papaursa (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursa and HeinzMaster: HeinzMaster and I are tracking all the upcoming notable fighters in UFC and adding sourced content on upcoming fights. I will review and move them to mainspace when they are notable in regardless who are the original creators. I believe the subject/ O'Neill will be offered another fight in next six months which the probability is very high. I will keep an eye on the draft to make sure it would not be G13. (G13 is not automatic process, as it has to be nominated and the draft is on my watchlist). Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 20:20, 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. Weak delete is still delete Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cooney Fine Art[edit]

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

PR, notability lacking, product of paid editing: see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jacobmcpherson_paid_editing Acousmana (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Galleries are very rarely notable. the sources provided are about artists who show at the gallery, rather than the gallery. GNG fail. --- Possibly (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete galleries can be quite notable, but struggling to find significant, independent sourcing for this one at the moment. Will keep looking as I feel like I have seen coverage that might help it by. StarM 02:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - If I were reviewing this submission at AFC, I would decline it as reflecting what the gallery says about itself and not what third parties say about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above. The three books in WorldCat are all by, not about this gallery. I'll have to do more research. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 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 18:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lutz Leichsenring[edit]

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

PR, advertisement, CV, product of paid editing: see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jacobmcpherson_paid_editing Acousmana (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not in any way actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Sinelnikova[edit]

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

PR, notability suspect, CV-like, product of paid editing: see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jacobmcpherson_paid_editing Acousmana (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not convinced by the sources. The article itself is hugely puffed up, and tries to make run of the mill items like a Banff Centre residency (tens of thousands of artists have done that) into a giant achievement.--- Possibly (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough sources to qualify for WP:GNG. All I can see is PR spam. Grailcombs (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concurring with other editors. This article was draftified in September 2020 and then moved back into article space, apparently by a paid editor, in violation of conflict of interest rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there's some coverage, and whether it's significant is arguable. She has had art displayed in NYC. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's relevant here, but I actually didn't receive any money for the creation of this article, which is accurately depicted on my user page Jacobmcpherson (talk) 19:16, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funda Payan[edit]

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

Payan has never played in a game that would give a presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL and I'm not seeing any coverage with enough depth for WP:GNG. A Turkish search brings up nothing better than an U17 squad list, a friendly tournament squad list and another passing mention, this time in Habervan. There is clear consensus among the Wikipedia community that passing mentions in squad lists do not add up to passing GNG. Also, the player appears to have retired a few years ago and so future notability looks unlikely. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources and his career is yet not eligible for WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Grailcombs (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 20:12, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filteria[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I can find no coverage of this person whatsoever. Lennart97 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That such a basically not sourced article has survived for 15 years is a major mark against Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC. Spudlace (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSINGER and WP:GNG, both sources are unreliable, and no albums or songs have charted, received certifications, or have been awarded accolades at a major music award show. --Ashley yoursmile! 07:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable singer -Xclusivzik (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSINGER and WP:GNG, a non notable singer. Grailcombs (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close to meeting NSINGER. —Kbabej (talk) 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Javan[edit]

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

Musician does not yet meet notability criteria. The sources provided are blogs and interviews about an "up and coming artist" - the usual vehicles for getting the word out. ... discospinster _talk 19:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant music PR. Acousmana (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting our inclusion criteria for musicians. Wikipedia is not a place to put up your bio to try to get contacted by music venue owners to do a show.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough sources to meet WP:GNG, just PRs. Grailcombs (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NSINGER. Pure PR. —Kbabej (talk) 03:57, 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 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurt McDermott[edit]

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

This is an article about a film maker that lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sources are very poor. At the time of nomination, the sources are:

An interview which does not contribute to establishing notability.
An author profile from an ebook sales site which is not useful for establishing notability
An article in Reel Chicago about a film deal. This is local Chicago film making coverage and is run of the mill business news. Does very little to move the notability needle.
A wiki. Not at all a reliable source.
An obituary in the Chicago Tribune, but this is a paid obit and not an obituary written by Tribune staff. Id does nothing to establish notability.

The best claim for notability are the two film festival awards. There is a claim that his "movie NIGHTINGALE IN A MUSIC BOX won the Jury Prize for Outstanding Screenplay at The Slamdance 2004 Film Festival" but the best information I could find was very brief article which states the film was given a "jury honor". The Slam Dance Festival press release announced the top ten screenplays ([5], [6]) but Nightingale is not one of those. He did win best director at Shriekfest. However, neither that award or the Slam Dance Festival jury honor attracted anythign in the way of coverage. Whpq (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create, 2017-02 ✗ G12

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. W. (poet)[edit]

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

Pretty sure this fails WP:NPOET, a search revealed nothing. Noah ^💬 18:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 18:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 18:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It wasn't hard to find the extended discussion here, & no doubt there is more. Obviously you have to be clever with the search terms for an anon figure; I doubt you were. Inadequate WP:BEFORE. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to Johnbod's source, [7] their "songs worthily found place in many anthologies and song-books of the age". Likely more exists offline, given that they fl. 1602. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above noted sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this journal article was published by University of North Carolina Press and discusses the subject and their work in depth. And other sources, particularly offline, are likely to exist as Eddie891 points out. --Ashley yoursmile! 05:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above discussion. --Gazal world (talk) 11:19, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Pearlman[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a broadcaster and environmentalist, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion standards for broadcasters or environmentalists. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically verifiable that they exist -- the notability test is not "she has a job", but "she has received reliable source coverage from the media about her work in the job in order to establish its significance". But the references here aren't reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability: two are her own "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with, one is her IMDb profile, one is a directory entry in a political information database that maintains a profile of every single candidate in every election in the United States regardless of whether the role they were elected to passes our notability rules for politicians or not; one is her own company's proprietary YouTube channel; one is a newspaper article that just glancingly namechecks her existence in the process of not being about her; and one is impossible to verify what it is as leads to a database login screen rather than any actual content. Again, notability is not a question of using primary sources to verify that her work exists -- it's a question of using reliable and independent sources to verify that her work has been externally deemed significant by people without a vested interest in her career, but absolutely none of these seven footnotes are doing that at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing does not show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve Nancy Pearlman was included on a Wikipedia page red list brought to our attention at a Women in Red editathon. This verifies that there is a want for a Wikipedia page about her work. Additionally, the awards she has received and the three EMMY nominations are clear reliable and independent evidence that she has and is worthy of external recognition for her work, warranting a page detailing her contributions. In line with the reason this page was created in the first place, it is worth considering why Pearlman may lack reliable sources to establish her significance. It is often much harder for women who are doing notable work to be considered as meriting the same coverage and acknowledgment as men in similar works. --Basatopa (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our role or our mandate to exempt people from having to pass WP:GNG just because they happen to be members of underrepresented groups who might not have gotten as much media coverage as some people feel they deserved. It's not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS — our job is to follow media coverage, not to help people create their public presence by maintaining articles about people who don't already have any media coverage to verify that their work has already been externally validated as significant. So we don't create any special dispensations exempting people from actually having to have any GNG-worthy coverage just because they happen to be women (or people of colour, or LGBT, etc.), while somehow applying our regular notability standards only to straight white men

And it's always possible for absolutely anybody to wikilink absolutely any word or phrase in any article at any time — [[it's]] [[entirely]] [[possible]] [[to]] [[do]] [[this]], [[for example]], and entirely possible for editors of any article about any person to wikilink the name of every single other person named in the body text regardless of whether that other person would pass our notability standards or not (for example, you routinely see articles about politicians where somebody wikilinked the names of their non-notable spouses and children) — so "a redlink for her already existed in another article" isn't automatic grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself either. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WP:ORG guideline, in the WP:MULTSOURCES section, actually does suggest that a determination of notability can be calibrated, e.g. "The word "multiple" is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product. Editors should recognize certain biases, such as recentism (greater availability of recent sources) when assessing historical companies or systemic bias (greater availability of English and Western sources) when discussing organizations in the developing world. Therefore, for example, a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s might establish notability with just one or two quality sources, while the same is not true for a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area." But as a general matter, WP:IAR notwithstanding, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability due to the policies and guidelines that form the core of the encyclopedia, and will thereby tend to replicate the systemic bias that has tended to exclude marginalized people from WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage.

Per WP:HEY, I have revised the article and added sources, because I was able to find a 1990 Los Angeles Times article with in-depth coverage, a 2017 Canyon News profile, a 2006 OC Register article with early biographical information, a quote in a 2007 HuffPost article, a slightly more complete 2018 Azerbaijan source about some of her television work, a 2017 LA Weekly article with more than a trivial mention of her political career, and a 2013 endorsement from the Los Angeles Times. I'm not sure how to incorporate biographical information from these and other related sources that also provide context for the OC Register article above: ABC News, NYT Times, SFGate, Inside Edition, New Yorker, but I am tending to think WP:BASIC notability may be established. Beccaynr (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first three references must show in-depth, independent coverage that WP:SECONDARY in nature. The first three on here, are name drops. The first must prove bone fides. Where is it? It needs a much deeper integration of secondary sources to make the article work. It just not there at the moment. If it going to kept under a WP:HEY, then it needs a transformation and very quickly. scope_creep^Talk 14:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I sugest that the above arguments iamounts to sayign, elete, because poorly written. If that were our policy.... DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tariye Gbadegesin[edit]

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

A very interesting one as this is the worst case of WP:ADMASQ & WP:COATRACK I’ve encountered in a long while. This has all the tale signs of covert UPE. The subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE shows this & this which are both sponsored posts as expressly stated. The subject of the article merely wants a Wikipedia presence. Celestina007 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's well reasoned argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; pure vanity fluff. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. LefcentrerightDiscuss 13:24, 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manoranjan Thakur[edit]

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

non-notable journalist, probably eligible for g4 but an SPA insists on removing the tag. There is 0 coverage that would allow for a standalone article on this person. CUPIDICAE💕 17:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are not enough reliable sources which can demonstrate his notability. While reading his current page. It is enlisted that he is a senior journalist, Tabla Player, Theater Actor-Director, and author but I can't see any source which showcases this. Hence, Per nom clearly fails WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources referenced are his blogs. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 11:22, 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 Leidos. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MANDRIL[edit]

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

Could not find sourcing indicative of notability, a before search for "MANDRIL" "tactical data links" pulled up very little; one book, no newspapers.com results, no reliable sources on my library database, etc. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mottezen (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leidos. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 18:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leidos: There is not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for a stand alone article, but the content will find a nice home at Leidos if sources are found. The redirect will point readers in the right direction to find the content if it is developed. Unsourced content should not be merged. // Timothy :: talk 06:07, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emile Ghantous[edit]

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

Notability issue, also content was created by paid editor who has since been blocked for flouting rules. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jacobmcpherson_paid_editing Acousmana (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sourcing in the article is primarily passing mentions. The big substantial profile is from Medium, and unreliable source as anybody can write articles to be posted on that. The author of that article is somebody who runs a Social Media and Marketing Agency. There is a claim the subject is Grammy-niominated without specifying exactly what he was nominated for. I can find no substance for this claim,; my searches only turn up more of the same claim with no substance. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable music producer and songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this Wikipedia:Notability (music) and didn't see any guidelines for producers? Maybe worth exploring as sometimes their notability is found beyond surface level information. Does Wikipedia have a way of pulling data from institutions like the Grammy's? Jacobmcpherson (talk) 12:31, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roy W. Menninger[edit]

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

The only sourcing here is a search parameter for his papers and a link to the website of an organization he headed. Just because a university has someone's papers and created a short bio connected with their papers, does not automatically make them notable. The link to his company website does not even work. A google search turned up a linkedIn listing and that was about it. Nothing indicates that he meets notability for acdemics, which is the normal way psychiatrists are found to be notable, nor for GNG, nor any other criteria as far as I can tell. The other way some psychiatrists achieve notability is as writers, but I see no evidence Mr. Menninger has ever written anything, let alone something that would propel him towards notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After doing a deep Google search I can see some credible sources like The New York Times and a few other related sources.

Rensberger, Boyce (1975-11-13). "Experts Consider 'Caring Society' (Published 1975)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-03-12.
Braslow, Joel (2002-03-01). "American Psychiatry after World War II (1944-1994) (review)". Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 76 (1): 182–183. doi:10.1353/bhm.2002.0006. ISSN 1086-3176.
"In the Shadow of Giants | Family Business Magazine". www.familybusinessmagazine.com. Retrieved 2021-03-12.
"Roy W Menninger Adjunct Professor". bcm.edu. 2021-03-12.</ref>
"News". Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services. 47 (7): 8–50. 2009-07-01. doi:10.3928/02793695-20090603-02. ISSN 0279-3695.

My vote is still in the middle. Let's wait for more experts here in this field like @David Eppstein and Russ Woodroofe:. Grailcombs (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a nationally-recognized expert on suicide and stress and the president/CEO of a major health care foundation for 26 years, overseeing a period of tremendous growth and expansion. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the NY Times says that he is the President of "one of the major psychiatric treatment and teaching facilities in the world", then that appears to be a highly reliable secondary source vouching for his notability. Also, it appears that he edited a large work on the history of medical practice, which may also be notable. Given that he was the President and CEO of this organization for a significant period of time, there should be plenty more reliable sources sitting around somewhere. Has the American Psychiatric Association written anything about him or his clinic? Hyperion35 (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Philly jawn (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets GNG now thanks to HEY. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:48, 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 merge to Yixing clay teapot. However, an actual merge is not needed because the creator has already done so here, though some cleanup of the merge is needed. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TianQing Clay Teapot[edit]

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

Dubious sourcing for this topic. A lone book (about which I can find very little), and then some unclear website which repeats the book and then makes unverifiable claims. Can perhaps be draftified if people see potential in this. Fram (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see some additional sourcing online [8][9] (the second one is paywalled). A more thorough search would probably turn up more. Not sure if it's better as its own article or if it should be merged to Yixing clay teapot. If kept, it should be moved to standard capitalization Tianqing clay teapot. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I am looking at the sources through Google Translate, so bear with me please. The first one, [10], doesn't seem to mention TianQing (while e.g. Yixing is mentioned 11 times)? I see that "天青泥" is mentioned two times though. And once in the second source, it gets translated by "azure mud" instead of it being treated as a proper name. A merge may be the best solution, as it seems to be a minor aspect or subtopic of the Yixing one. Fram (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I imagine Google Translate is having trouble with some of the terminology, as most of the relevant characters have other more common meanings, but 天青泥 is Tianqing clay in this context. The first source mentions Tianqing clay briefly (as one of several types of clay used to make Yixing clay teapots); I'm not sure how much detail the second source goes into because I can only see the abstract. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - not sure how to change the capitalization of the Title. Feel free to do so of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw2100 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much confusion and misinformation about this topic. That's the reason I started this entry. I plan to add images later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw2100 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there is an online version of the book by ZHOU Gaoqi of Ming dynasty where Tianqing clay was first mentioned in history. Here is the URL http://reader.epubee.com/books/mobile/d8/d880b7dc21347fb8cafda49bf48bbc1e/text00004.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw2100 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is what the original text in Chinese 摘自《阳羡茗壶系》: "天青泥，出蠡墅，陶之变黯肝色。又其夹支有梨皮泥，陶现梨冻色；淡红泥，陶现松花色；浅黄泥，陶现豆碧色；密泥，陶现轻赭色；梨皮和白砂，陶现淡墨色。山灵腠络，陶冶变化，尚露种种光怪云。" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw2100 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yixing clay teapot. That adds little to that article. I find it very hard to comment on an article that contains a lot of Chinese. We seem to have conflict over the correct transliteration of the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a page of the teapot showing purple areas which fits well with "it shows a bizarre effect after firing" from the Original ZHOU Gaoqi book of the Ming dynasty. Maybe he got something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw2100 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yixing clay teapot. The article doesn't have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for its own article, but the sourced content here will benefit the target article. If in the future more sources are found, which I think may be possible, the article can be restored from the history, or it can continue to be expanded at the target. I'd be happy to change my !vote to Keep if SIGCOV can be found to justify a stand alone article, or if an editor wishes the article moved to Drafts or userspace to give them time to work on it, I would support this. // Timothy :: talk 05:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added 3 images files which might affect opinions? Not to bribe you with good words: I am thrilled with the dedication of the team. No wonder wikipedia has such a good reputation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw2100 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the consensus here is to merge to the main article. I will do that next. Done merging. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw2100 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 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 Wiktionary redirect. Clear consensus not to retain a Wikipedia article. Softly redirecting to Wiktionary ensures that readers still find the definition in the appropriate place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POTD[edit]

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

Not notable at all. Noah ^💬 16:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 16:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, tagged for notability since 2012. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What LaundryPizza03 said. -- Hoary (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Clearly a term in use, but there is no encyclopedic content here, just a dictionary definition. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:35, 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 17:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Betrayal[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a television film, not making or reliably sourcing any discernible claim to passing our notability criteria for either films or television shows. As always, every film that exists is not always guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because film directories like IMDb technically verify that it exists -- the notability test for films requires evidence of their significance, such as notable film or television awards and/or the reception of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of critical attention from established professional film or television critics. But there's no evidence that this film passes either of those tests, so it isn't entitled to a presumption of notability in the absence of any notability-building sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom there is not enough coverage available which can make this film meets WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I only found a single source that discussed the film in any depth, which isn't enough to merit a keep from me. It looks like this film was pretty much solidly ignored by the media. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of coverage, not enough sources that count towards the notability of the film. --Ashley yoursmile! 10:31, 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) 02:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hreno[edit]

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

WP:AUTOBIO (creator = "Jhreno") of a film and television director, not making or reliably sourcing any claim to passing our notability criteria for filmmakers. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work is technically verified by an IMDb profile; the notability test for filmmakers is not just that their work exists, but requires concrete evidence of their significance, such as critical analysis of their work by recognized film or television critics in real media.
But there's none of that here, and even the four bluelinked titles in his filmography aren't helping: The Hunger is a TV series (not even properly sourced as notable at all) for which he directed one single episode; False Pretenses exists solely as a redirect to the most famous actress in it rather than an article establishing its notability as a film; Deadly Betrayal has a completely unreferenced article that fails to establish its notability at all; and while Poison Ivy: The Secret Society is probably notable, its article fails to actually demonstrate that with good references, and even its potential notability has far more to do with being one film in a franchise series than with the fact that Jason Hreno directed it per se. All of which means that nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from actually having to have any WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him.
In actual fact, I would have speedied this for not even making a claim of notability at all, but it's been flying under the radar for over a decade in this state, and I don't feel comfortable speedying an article that's been around that long. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need to proactively ride Wikipedia of all autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. Per a BEFORE here, there are only casual mentions of him directing Poison Ivy. Nothing in depth from RS. --Kbabej (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The nom rationale is pretty much detailed & I agree with that wholeheartedly. Per rationale by @Kbabej also. Furthermore, i concur with @Johnpacklambert I believe a CSD should be created for autobiographies overt or covert. Celestina007 (talk) 01:21, 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 17:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Postidal[edit]

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

completely non-notable company sourced to blackhat SEO and press releases. No meaningful coverage in any reliable source. CUPIDICAE💕 14:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet notability criteria; sources are trash — billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that we have deleted Draft:Postidal in the same time frame. So it looks like that we have either someone sockpuppeting Special:DeletedContributions/Febin96 or we have a situation where there is a commercial incentive (paid editing) to create the article. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked for sourcing, and find nothing at all that is reliable, secondary and independent, certainly nothing that would establish notability per WP:NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. This company is a start up. And this stub does have plenty of sources in accordance to Wikiguidelines for stubs. --Febin96 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Febin96, just because something is "real" (or is a startup) is not a reason it should exist. I would recommend reading HELP:AFD as an introduction to what this deletion process looks like. Please also sign your messages—you can find instructions to do so on this page. Perryprog (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Every source is blatantly from unreliable outlets (blackhat SEO stuff). Perryprog (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. I think it should stay live --Jonathancur1234 (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Striking comment. Confirmed sock puppet of Febin96. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete This article is good and the sources june fine. Whoever wrote it did a decent good job --Sharelovenothate (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admin be aware. Some of these comments seem to be from sockpuppets. Why do I say that? Because this article started as a stub, I see, and it could be asked to be improved or expanded. This article never was given a chance to be improved. It was just nominated for deletion with no second chance. I also find it weird, very weird, that the same Admin and user who asked for the nomination of deletion of this article also nominated for deletion the Spanish version of this article.Sharelovenothate (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just find it weird. I am NOT saying that I am right. Lastly, I'll leave this here:

"Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." According to Wikipedia guidelines.Sharelovenothate (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comment. Confirmed sock puppet of Febin96. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:CORPDEPTH --Devoke water 11:24, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenary Technology[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE only showed passing mentions of the company in connection to games it worked on. Since the company does not produce original games, just provides support or port development, a navigation list on grounds of being a "creative force" makes little sense. IceWelder [✉] 13:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 13:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 13:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't delete. Though the company doesn't meet the notability guidelines the article is still able to remain as more people will be able to discover the developer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TriforceTropical (talk • contribs) 14:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

That's not the point of Wikipedia. IceWelder [✉] 14:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet vote struck. -- ferret (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, i.e., sources about the company itself, not just being mentioned as having ported games in routine coverage. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 18:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Textual variants in the First Epistle of John[edit]

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

Most of the article is a copy-paste from https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=VarApp%7Creference=1Jo.1 and https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=VarApp%7Creference=1John.4&options=GNHVU, e.g. ἡμῶν] (our) – ‭א, B, L, Ψ, 049, 69, 88, 181, 322, 326, 436, 1067, 1175, 1241, 1409, pm, Lect, itar, itp, itt(pt),, itz, vgww, vgst, copsa, geo, Ps-Oecumeniuscomm, Theophylactcomm, TRStephens 1550, WH is on STEP Bible ἡμῶν] ‭א B L Ψ 049 69 88 181 322 326 436 1067 1175 1241 1409 pm Lect itar itp itt(pt) itz vgww vgst copsa geo Ps-Oecumeniuscomm Theophylactcomm ςStephanus WH NRtext CEI Rivtext TILC Nv NM. I do not think we should have a WP article which duplicates another website. And before one may argue that the page is to be kept because it is an important topic, I will say that almost no one works on Christianity related topics on WP so the hope of seeing the radical improvements needed are null. I add that there is already a section Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament#First_Epistle_of_John, and I note that it has the exact same problem for it has the exact same text. Veverve (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament#First_Epistle_of_John per nom. Not seeing a reason for a stand alone article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is created as a sub-article of Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament, to reduce the size of the main article. It would also make easier for adding materials only related to variants in 1 John. The links in the article are unique for Wikipedia, so it does not just duplicate another source. There are works being done in Christianity and Bible-related topics, but because of the large scopes, some articles may receive scarce attention. JohnThorne (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We have recently had a discussion on Textual variants in the New Testament and a related article, tackling the subject in a different way. I think that on the whole this is a subject best tackled one book at a time, or in small groups (perhaps the 3 epistles of John together. Thus splitting that article is a worthwhile endeavour. It is desirable that minor differences in spellings are ignored unless they make a significant difference to the meaning, but the difference between our and your would not be merely minor. I might have liked to see some discussion of how much difference some of the variant readings make to the meaning. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkis Serge Melengitchian[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. ... discospinster _talk 13:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's so famous in Canada, I've never heard of him. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not sufficient coverage yet! Hence fails WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSINGER and WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Ashley yoursmile! 07:34, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amirul Syafik[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL according to Soccerway, Tribuna and Besoccer. In my searches, I could only find trivial coverage in Utusan and Metro which is not significant enough for WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom, his current presence and career fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Grailcombs (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Shevchenko[edit]

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

The subject doesn't meet the general notability guidelines as she hasn't received significant independent coverage. There's one human interest story in the town paper [11]. The other links are a promotional interview and examples of modelling work. – Thjarkur (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A 7-year-old child model with a five-year modeling career, numerous fashion shoots and an appearance on a TV modeling segment has sufficient notability for a Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The TV show appearance is a brief demonstration of a wedding dress on a daytime talk show. The fashion shoots don't appear (to me) to make up for the lack of WP:GNG – Thjarkur (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. very few people know her.--NeujorK (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is personal opinion and not argument based on general notability guidelines which doesn't talk about a number of people that should know the object of the article. User:Elegantnetwork1 (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost creepy, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is personal opinion and not argument based on general notability guidelines User:Elegantnetwork1 (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough sources which demonstrates that he meets WP:BASIC. Grailcombs (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need way better sourcing than this to ever justify having an article on someone under the age of 10.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- general notability guidelines doesn't have age discriminations to be published User:Elegantnetwork1 (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with deletion comments above as general notability guidelines has requirements of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which the object of the article meets. According to WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it and also according to WP:SECONDARY secondary sources are not necessary independent sources. So the second reference is Los Angeles Magazine publishing the interview with the object's mother but the magazine is independent Los Angeles magazine. The first reference is russian newspaper talking about the object of the article. Some of other references are Getty images which is licensed stock images supplier taking photographs of high-level fashion shows only. Also according to WP:GNG there is no fixed number of sources required. And it also says Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. There are no more printed sources available in Russian printed newspapers that could be requested and should be counted in as reliable sources. The object is a fashion model that has worked with variety of high-profile brands and world-wide campaigns and high-profile fashion shows and TV shows. Most of people in the fashion industry know of her. User:Elegantnetwork1 (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the keep argument above me, there is only one secondary source that provides SIGCOV, not enough for a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are at least 2 of them, reference 1 and reference 2 that provide SIGCOV, right? the other reference provide additional proof of notable accomplishments of the object such as high level fashion shows, TV show, fashion campaigns such as Nike, Levi's, Nordstrom, etc. General notability guidelines clearly states: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. So we got 2 with very deep coverage and 10 additional with mentions. Reference 12 also displays all the brands that the object is famous for. According to reference 2 the object's photos were in storefront of every Nordstrom all over the US for Xmas. What do you think? User:Elegantnetwork1 (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG isn't met. Ref 1 (Kimry Press) is a local-interest story, Ref 2 is an interview with her mother. The rest are horrifically, atrociously bad: providing Getty Images links to claim notability for a 7-year-old is just awful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Power~enwiki. I don't know what is creepy about her, but she is not notable (yet). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:42, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 18:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cipatat railway station[edit]

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

Have you seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cilame railway station? It was deleted because not notable enough to have an article itself. And we have to concur that the whole state of the Javanese railroad articles is pretty poor according to Mangoe (talk · contribs)

And we inform you that in Indonesian Wikipedia, I (RaFaDa20631, formerly Alqhaderi Aliffianiko) have pointed about special and unusual notability standards for Indonesian railway stations, dealing with small stations:

All accidents and incidents at the station must be referenced with four good sources criteria: reliable, significant, independent, and secondary. All railway stations must have a timetable linked to official site of the operator. Articles must have at least one picture depicting the station building, either active, ghost, or not, and must be uploaded on Commons.
All railway lines in Indonesia are considered "notable" even the article itself rely on primary written (not orally) sources.
All active stations are considered "notable", but not always for ghosts or defuncts.
All active services are considered "notable", but defunct or planned services may be not notable enough.

Hint: use {{Train Stations in Indonesia}} to find what the station's name is notable or significant enough. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as the article at the current state didn't meet WP:STATION standards. RaFaDa20631 (talk · contribs). while I understand Indonesian Wikipedia might have different consensus regarding the notability of Indonesian stations, I don't think that the consensus applied to en-Wikipedia. While I understand regional differences, it is most unwise to use different rules for different region in the en-wiki. SunDawn (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article has been reviewed by Onel5969, the deletion discussion is not relevant. for nominator, please see log before creating nominations deletions. 103.143.209.202 (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what the deletion rationale is here? Nominator cited Indonesian Wikipedia's rules, but this is an active station so it would meet their guidelines. Jumpytoo Talk 10:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changxing railway station that railway station articles should be kept. I don't follow the reasons for deletion here - just because an article is of poor quality doesn't mean it should be deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me explain you why I object the "strong" consensus. For non-notable railway stations, we can merge all non-notable stations: no intermodal connections, situated on a rural setting with little or no ridership, according to WP:NOTTIMETABLE. As a comparison, it's okay to translate all KRL Commuterline stations due to its high ridership. However, Indonesian small stations are mostly little or no ridership (or as a passing loop-like system which does not serve passengers). However, the rail lines are not created or translated, and we suggest a solid rail transport article hierarchy on creating all the systems first, then the companies, then the lines, and finally, the stations. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for this. Sounds like more effort is needed in creating Indonesian lines. Deleting individual station articles won't help us with that! NemesisAT (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've created the Manggarai–Padalarang railway article now. NemesisAT (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This feels less like a deletion nomination and more like a policy proposal. The standards of the Indonesia Wikipedia should not govern whether articles are kept or not on the English Wikipedia. If the latter chooses to adopt the former then that's a different matter, but heavy railway stations that are in active use are generally kept, and no reason has been advanced for why we should treat those in Indonesia differently. Mackensen (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Mackensen. This is looking pointy. It's a mainline rail station serving a city with a population of over 133,000 an apparently it is considered of cultural heritage status. It's impossible for there not to be extensive government reports, budgets and analysis. Such a station in the US or UK would unlikely be nominated for AfD. Is this a case of systemic bias?Oakshade (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. OktaRama2010 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is strong consensus that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Storer[edit]

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

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage is mostly WP:PASSING mentions in the context of the Tracktion and JUCE software programs. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all inclusion requirements. All sources used in the article are either press releases or announcement. Luciapop (talk) 07:13, 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal Workload Automation[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources listed can establish notability, and the vast majority of the are primary sources. Mottezen (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:39, 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 redirect to Manan (disambiguation). However, both pages will need to be swapped so that the disambiguation page does not have the disambiguation modifier since there are no primary topic. There are also no opposition to moving the redirect to Manan (name) so it will also be performed. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manan[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The category Hindu philosophical concepts appears to be an error, since the proper word (according to the article itself) is "manana". Once the edit history is expunged, there are plenty of people with the given name or surname, as well as a handful of places. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT and WP:TNT. A collection of multiple, unrelated concepts that happen to be named with similar – not quite the same – words is specifically something that Wikipedia is not. The earliest version of the page might have been a shout-out to someone named Manan Patel from a contributor with no other edits. Over the years it appears to have attracted a variety of jokes, shout-outs, edit wars, and vandalism, but nothing I could see of encyclopedic value, unless I missed it. Cnilep (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is an article about a personal name, or rather – an article about several unrelated names that are spelt the same in English. It is, in principle, viable, and some of the content that's directly about the names looks alright (though wild tangents definitely don't – hence the call for TNT above). The article has been around for 14 years, and has seen a surprising level of editing, but I can't see, at least from a quick glance, any good quality version in the history that we can revert to. I'd prefer to keep this history, allowing re-use and re-creation by anyone who's willing to do the legwork to use sources to improve the content. Ideally, we would have a separate article about each of those names, as they're distinct encyclopedic topics, but until that happens, we can resort to another basic function of name articles – navigation to people with the name. To that end, I've created Manan (disambiguation), which contains among other things a list of people whose name is spelt "Manan", regardless of origin. The best course of action is to move the article to Manan (name) and turn it into a redirect to the dab page (which would then be at Manan). – Uanfala (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support ↑. Plenty of other given names get Wikipedia articles.A Tree In A Box (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uanfala's Manan dab page. The drafted disambiguation page is preferable to outright deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to create a dab page after the dust had settled, but Uanfala beat me to it. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 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. Keep arguments are not adding up to a gng pass and sngs cannot overcome poor sourcing in a blp. No objection ifvsomeone wants to put a redirect in Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emiway Bantai (Indian rapper)[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper who has already been the subject of a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emiway Bantai. I haven’t seen the deleted article and so am not tagging this for G4 (but maybe an admin can compare them). However, this article does not indicate that the subject has become notable in the past two years. This article was submitted to AFC for review twice, and was declined twice, the first time for lack of notability and for reading like an advertisement. The second time I declined it as not meeting any of the musical notability criteria, and because of the previous deletion discussion. It was then moved from draft space to article space anyway. It still doesn’t satisfy musical notability. Naïve Google search shows that the subject exists and makes extensive use of social media. We guessed that. Article has been reference-bombed with a mixture of possibly reliable sources and unreliable sources. A well-sourced BLP of a performer who does not meet notability criteria is still a BLP of a non-notable performer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep yes, it reads like music PR, but rapper appears to have won MTV Europe Music Award for Best Indian Act in 2019, so not a total unknown, Indian media coverage seems to support regional notability? Acousmana (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I waded through the mire of references and could find nothing to convince me that the article subject was notable. I tagged it with a G4 speedy delete but later withdrew that based on a suggestion that the topic was salted. Clearly not. Moving a draft into mainspace without review is also a red-flag in my book which encouraged me to critical examine all the sources. The requirements of WP:SINGER are a long way from being met. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete still not notable and this is nothing more than PR spam. CUPIDICAE💕 13:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like the rapper has been covered in reliable sources multiple times. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough reliable sources that demonstrates his notability. All, I can see is mostly PR sources. Grailcombs (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he was won a notable award as per WP:Anybio and has had an album released by Virgin EMI which is a major label so he should be included but the article needs a less promotional rewrite, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The tone of article sounds a little on the hollow PR side but a Many credentials are notable like the MTV Europe award and 10 million subscribers on youtube.com.--101.0.41.115 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and salt it too (cf. Emiway Bantai). Things like awards and major label deals are heuristics: They are indications that significant coverage might well exist, but actual notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable sources. While the article has been carpet-bombed with references, it fails to establish that Bantai meets this standard, and no new sources have been brought up in this discussion. Blablubbs|talk 15:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per comment by Acousmana. –Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 16:35, 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vivekananda College, Thakurpukur[edit]

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

I can't see coverage in independent sources. The source present are also not accessible. It may nor fulfill WP:GNG. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per WP:UNIN, all colleges are de facto notable. We can also use college website to improve the article. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks any coverage that would pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listings, namesakes and related pages. No independent reliable sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 18:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth to meet GNG or ORGCRIT. Sources in the article are either from the school or are database style entries. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. AppuduPappudu you should study WP:IS, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:N. Nothing is notable unless there are sources that demonstrate notability. Editors can presume notability, but this is not a guarantee a subject is notability and may be and often is challenged. // Timothy :: talk 05:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing that is available is extremely poor. Plus there is no way the article can be anything other then a non-neutral advert made up of basic non-encyclopedic facts if it is based purely (or mainly) on the institutions website. Given that, I see zero reason to not to delete the article. It's not like it can't be recreated when adequate sourcing materializes, if it ever does. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:07, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidevaldo Pereira[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Currently in the Saudi 2nd division, previously at most in the Brazilian 4th division. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 05:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 05:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 05:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 05:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources and his career is not yet eligible for GNG and NFOOTBALL. Grailcombs (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:44, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluca Lorenzoni[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. The most I've found is this article which, in my opinion, is not enough. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 05:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 05:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 05:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 05:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find anything other than that one article that Nehme pointed out so I believe that we are falling short on GNG here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roshni Koli[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the relevant notability guidelines. None of the criteria in the guideline for academics are satisfied, and I'm not seeing enough independent (i.e. not associated with her employers) sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO. The best I can find is interviews in local press, but these appear to be more about local news issues than Koli herself. At this point, it's probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC or another notability criterion. Being quoted in a local news source based on one's expertise does not provide a sufficient basis on which to base a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does seem like WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had been planning on nominating this myself. The cited sources fall well short of independence for satisfying GNG. MarginalCost (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC. Basically just a watered down CV. --Kbabej (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep if possible to find more citations, some are blocked from access in EU, but accept it may be a case ofWP:TOOSOON
Delete. She has 3 articles and 4 citations... Much, much too soon. JoelleJay (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Too few news sources. Peter303x (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apologies to disrupt what seems to be a clear delete. I am noticing some published material with name RL Koli at Google Scholar [12] which seems to be the same person. There are number of papers published as first and second author. She is also mentioned at a paper published at NIH [13]. I am aware that WP:Aacdemic will require her to have multiple highly cited sources. We are sort of seeing multiple papers at the moment but are not able to know if they are highly cited or not. But it is worth looking at it from that point of view. Also, I don't think WP:GNG would be required to check anymore if we are going for WP:Academic. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd already looked at Google Scholar, and the number of citations seems far far too low. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh great then. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:32, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 18:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin O'Connor (actor)[edit]

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

Incredibly poorly referenced BLP; no significant coverage that I could find. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This 48-year-old Irish actor has 131 acting credits listed on IMDb, starting in 1996. A 25-year acting career with numerous film and TV credits, including as a regular on various TV series should automatically indicate more than sufficient notability for a Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick WP:BEFORE search returned quite a few sources, several of which I have added to the article. While there were some tonal issues (also since addressed), that is not a reason to delete. AfD is not cleanup. Guliolopez (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a poorly sourced article, in and of itself, is a ridiculous reason to nominate an article for deletion. Simply tag the article for improved sources. If they exist, someone will find them. The issue should be whether or not the subject is wiki worthy. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ThurstonMitchell it being poorly sourced was not the main reason I nominated it. I pointed that out as the existing sources weren't significant reliable coverage. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel you are trying to make distinction without a difference or whatever that saying is. No matter how you word it, you could tag it for expert attention. That’s just one example. Give it a reasonable amount of attention for people more knowledgeable than yourself who might have access to resources you don’t. And if after several weeks or months after tagging it for expert attention, it still doesn’t live up to your expectations, then nominate. Why rush to delete unless it is something like John Doe is the self proclaimed champion of eating the most saltines in five minutes before going on to whistle for ten minutes? That you rush to delete. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article was tagged as an unreferenced BLP for nearly a year. {{needs expert}} doesn't work and is currently nominated for deletion. Regardless, how long a tag lingers doesn't make an article more or less notable - which from what I saw in my research, this article wasn't. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A substantial (mid-level) career, and sufficient references to start, at least. The article certainly needs work but I think this was the wrong process. SeoR (talk) 21:11, 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 Napa, California. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Oak School[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school. Sourcing is all of a local nature which one might expect of any school in the US. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need something more than local coverage to show that an elementary school is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - (by which I mean "create an Education section at") to Napa, California per WP:ATD. We should never delete a school article unless it has a common name. All unique school names should be kept, minimally as a redirect. That gives the reader who may be searching for anything about that name at least enough information to find where it is. 174.254.194.134 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Napa, California, ideally with an education section created at the target exactly as suggested above. The prose on this article is essentially just history of the school - it doesn't actually assert any notability and so I don't think a merge is necessarily appropriate. The article name may be useful to readers so perhaps should not be deleted outright. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Napa, California. The arguments in the previous discussion did not provide any evidence of notability. I also see no signs of notability today. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:59, 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 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Physicians Health Choice[edit]

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

I cannot find any evidence this was a notable insurance company and it's not mentioned at all at its successor's article (AARP#Health_insurance). The award it won was its sole claim to notability, and that does not appear to be a notable award, but rather an industry selection.

Opted against PROD as the company's predecessor was brought to and deleted at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WellMed Medical Management) and felt this deserved discussion as well. StarM 03:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2009-10 ↻ restored, 2009-10 ✗ G6

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Firestar464 (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irish genealogy[edit]

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

[14] On behalf of another editor. Firestar464 (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination fails to provide a case for deletion and seems to be proxying for an IP editor but there's a reason that IP editors are not allowed to start AfDs. The page in question is substantial and has existed for over 10 years. WP:BEFORE obviously hasn't been done as there are numerous books about the topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:39, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Tobias Shaw[edit]

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

A working casting director. Apparently her bio says that she received a lifetime achievement award from BFI. However, I can't find anything on the BFI site to corroborate that. In fact, I can't find anything on the BFI site that says that such an award exists, unlike AFI, where there is such an award. That being said, even if such an award exists, that is not enough to establish notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as meets WP:CREATIVE with the BFI award for her career (#4) and her body of work overall (#3). It is my understanding that third-party sources, one of which was cited in the article, albeit behind a paywall, are preferable to a link on the awarding organization's website--but maybe that's for more minor awards than the one she received. But Googling her name and BFI brings the excerpt from her obituary that reports on her receiving the award, so I don't know why the nominator doubts it being fact. I added a second source through a subscription database that should clarify the name of the award and should reinforce its existence and her having received it. Beyond that, when I search her name with quotes, I get 348 results in Proquest EIMA. All signs point to her having been an important casting director. Just did a little search in newspapers.com and got this article; another 114 hits. That's with all 3 names--I'd doubtless get more with "Rose Shaw" and "Rose Tobias" that would be some fun to sort through. Haven't searched NewspaperArchive or the Historical Major Dailies collections... yet. Even without the BFI award, she was highly visible in the entertainment industry DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets WP:BASIC. The BFI lifetime achievement award was presented in 1987 according to the obituaries, so perhaps it's not surprising that it doesn't have a great deal of online evidence. Chocmilk03 (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Telegraph article shows her career and the award - believe the awards were issued at the gala night of the BFI London Film Festival but can't find ref for that (again prob age). Added another ref about her casting career. Def meets WP:Basic.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per great explaination given by DiamondRemley39. He meets WP:CREATIVE for receiving BFI award for her career and her body of work overall. Grailcombs (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cite added by the British Federation of Film Societies which supports her notability in the film industry in 1987. The article could be improved by more citations from the period.Kaybeesquared (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The BFI lifetime achievement award makes her pass WP:ANYBIO. --Ashley yoursmile! 10:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly significant enough in her field to warrant an article here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 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 deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Glennon (actor and writer)[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "His Broadway and IMDb credits suggest notability" which clearly indicates the editor didn't check out either, as they are all insignificant roles. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and not enough significant roles to pass WP:NACTOR. Having a prominent role in a single episode of a TV show is not significant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prods are for uncontroversial deletions. I stated why I objected--what made it a bad prod. Maybe this guy got multiple Broadway roles, including in Shakespeare, without any coverage of anything he did before or since. Yeah, maybe they cast him based on head shots or and seeing him at an open mic night. It could be. Or maybe not. You should know better than to make assumptions about editors, but I guess you don't. Thank you for starting this rodeo. I will ride the bull tomorrow or the next day. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 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 merge to Connecticut Lakes#Fourth Connecticut Lake. MBisanz ^talk 18:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Connecticut Lake Trail[edit]

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

I'm rather surprised to have stumbled across a sixteen-year-old article on a half mile long nature trail with only two primary sources supporting it. Yes, it is unusual for a trail to cross the international border, but does that make it notable? The lack of significant coverage in reliable sources would seem to indicate that the answer is no. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has been widely mentioned in travel and hiking guides. The coverage is not spectacular, but it's more than enough to confirm the article claims. Example. I've added four sources. --- Possibly (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It leads to a notable location, the headwaters of the longest river in New England, but it is also notable in itself, for its unusual relation to an international border, as noted above. Sources have now been added. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with trail guides and similar sources is they are great sources for details and verification, but I don't think they do much for notability as they tend to just list everything. Up in my part of the woods there is a guide, The Milepost, that is very handy, but if we accepted it as establishing notability you could conceivably create several thousand articles on everything from short nature trails to pull-outs on the highway. It seems that even with the newer sources, the actual article text hasn't been expanded at all, again suggesting there simply isn't much to say here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge... somewhere. Not seeing a particularly notable trail here. Yes, it exists. Yes, trail guides cover trails. No, that isn't particularly indicative of notability. Possible targets could be The Nature Conservancy, Pittsburg–Chartierville Border Crossing, or Connecticut Lakes#Fourth Connecticut Lake (my personal favorite option). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I now feel kind of dumb that I didn't think of merging it to the article on the lake. That makes sense as far as I'm concerned, the content is kept but we don't have a separate article on such a minor trail. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 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 WP:SNOW keep, based on receipt of a significant national award. BD2412 T 04:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. C. Bhargava[edit]

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

I have conducted a pretty substantial WP:BEFORE and found coverage of his words, interviews with him, but nothing that is about him, or is significant coverage, or is in sources that are both independent of him, and reliable. WP:PRIMARY does allow usage of primary sources such as interviews, and WP:SELFPUB is likely to allow his Amazon book / his own words, but each in a restricted manner.

I have come to the conclusion that he is a decent gentleman doing his job well, supported by a prodigious corporate PR department, but that he fails to exhibit any notability aside from his association with the corporation he chairs and was CEO of in the past. Very few CEOs or corporate chairs are inherently and independently notable, and they may not inherit notability from their employer.

Fails WP:BIO Fiddle Faddle 17:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: A proper WP:Before should have done here before nomination. The subject is one of the most reputed businessman in India and has been honoured with Padma Bhushan, the highest civilian award in India in 2016 which makes him notable by virtue. See WP:ANYBIO Also he has been covered in depth in multpile independent reliable sources [15] [16] [17] Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If Kichu's comments are validated by consensus, this can be closed as keep at any time. Need further input though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not very well written to portray the notability of the person. The problem about Padma Bhushan is that it is given to 20 people every year, and unlike Kichu (talk · contribs) comment, the award is the third-highest in India, not the highest. However, him as the chairman of Maruti Suzuki is notable enough. I think this should not be speedily kept and we still need to wait for more consensus.SunDawn (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:SunDawn, actually I wanted to say one of the highest civilian award. But I missed that somehow. WP:ANYBIO says that if the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor he/she is considered notable. Padmabhushan is a well known significant award in the country. He also has plenty of in depth coverage which makes him easily passes GNG and I had already provided some of them in my previous comment. Adding some more source here [18] [19] [20]. Regards
Keep - passes WP:ANYBIO. --Ashley yoursmile! 10:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:ANYBIO.Poppified ^talk 02:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sverre Harrfeldt[edit]

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

No sources cited. Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 20:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NMOTORSPORT. Mottezen (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable. Passes WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:GNG. --Kemalcan (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have been inappropriately nominated for deletion. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:25, 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 keep. BD2412 T 04:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup qualification (Asia)[edit]

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

Prod was contested saying that the fact this event is two years from now is not a valid reason for deletion. My reasoning for the prod is that I’ve seen many articles for future events deleted and comments saying as the event gets closer the article can be re-created. In fact, just in the past week or two, an article I saw about a 2022 election in, IIRC, a south East Asian country, was deleted for that exact reason. So, my argument is, if why is a sporting event not held to the same standards as a country’s presidential election? ThurstonMitchell (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. The main question is whether the article passes WP:GNG, not whether it should be deleted because another article about an event scheduled in future was. A WP:BEFORE would have answered that questions as a very short search in english turned up several sources. [21][22][23][24]. Alvaldi (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event started at November 2021, and a notable event. This should be kept. SunDawn (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : The 2022 SE Asian election article should also be kept in my opinion. Election in countries are very notable, and the process usually started months before the real election.
Keep The subject is notable. The article is still a stub but may be expanded when relevant details become available. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:49, 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.

[1] BBC Genome

[2] "A Brief History Of Time (Travel): Inferno". www.shannonsullivan.com. Retrieved 2021-03-15.

[3] "BBC - Doctor Who Classic Series Episode Guide - Cast and crew". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2021-03-15.

[4] McLay, John; Richardson, David (August 1989). "The Fall Guys: Creating Havoc". Doctor Who Magazine (151): 13–17.

[5] McLay, John; Richardson, David (September 1989). "The Fall Guys: Creating Havoc". Doctor Who Magazine (152): 13–16.

[6] "Stuntmen and Doubles - The Avengers Forever". theavengers.tv/forever/index.htm. Retrieved 2021-03-15.

[7] Wise, Arthur; Ware, Derek (1973). Stunting in the Cinema. Constable. p. 10. ISBN 0-094-59090-7.

[8] Cavendish, Richard (1973). Man, Myth & Magic: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Supernatural, Volume 6. Purnell. p. 219.

[9] Alan Chuntz - Movie Dude

[10] Alan Chuntz - Aveleyman

[11] The Jewish Chronicle, 27 Nov 1970; pages 18/19

[12] [1]

[13] Allan Chuntz - British Comedy Guide

[14] New Canadian Film, Volumes 7-9. Cinémathèque québécoise. 1975.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]